The state legislature of California has forwarded a bill to Governor Gavin Newsom’s desk that bars the state’s 116 community colleges from substituting instructors with bots or generative artificial intelligence tools like ChatGPT.
If the governor does not veto or sign it into law by the end of September, Assembly Bill (AB) 2370 will automatically become law, making California the sole jurisdiction requiring courses to remain under the oversight of “a person who meets the minimum qualifications to serve as a faculty member”.
Given the Democratic super-majority in both houses of the state legislature, it is anticipated that Newsom will either sign the bill or allow it to take effect.
Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, president of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, acknowledged the utility of AI tools in classrooms but emphasized the importance of human involvement. “There are some pretty cool AI tools and some things are really helpful for us to do our jobs in the classroom,” she said. “But, at the end of the day, we wanted to make sure that there’s a human in the loop; it’s something talked about a lot with AI. We wanted to make sure that students are not taught by a robot.”
Brill-Wynkoop clarified that AB 2370 does not restrict faculty members’ academic freedom to use AI. “A faculty member can use whatever tools they like or ban whatever tools they like in their classrooms. What we want to do is to make sure that we have that space for humans,” she emphasized.
The bill underwent revisions between its introduction on 12 February 2024 and its adoption on 12 June, reflecting ongoing debates about AI’s role in and outside of education.
Originally centered on AI’s use and its prohibition from replacing faculty for instructional purposes, the bill was prompted by California’s history of outsourcing teaching of remedial subjects to AI-utilizing companies like Khan Academy.
“Developmental math is now being taught essentially by AI tools through our learning management system and not by a person,” Brill-Wynkoop noted, pointing out recent shifts in educational delivery.
The focus on AI in California, home to tech giants like Google and Meta, nearly derailed the bill. In a committee hearing, a lawmaker suggested forming a subcommittee to study whether faculty members should be human.
“My eyes really popped out of my head. And I had to laugh and say, ‘That’s the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. Of course a faculty member should be a human’,” Brill-Wynkoop recounted.
Following this incident, the bill was substantially rewritten, excluding specific mentions of AI. “There were no roadblocks from then on,” Brill-Wynkoop observed.
The bill now awaiting Newsom’s decision, along with concerns about AI supplanting human instructors, raises questions about the future of AI in college classrooms and lecture halls.
Brian Alexander, a senior scholar at Georgetown University and author, noted the potential of existing AI programs to structure courses and assess students. However, he highlighted three major obstacles to AI becoming mainstream in education.
Firstly, generative AI is prone to errors, which can undermine educational quality. Secondly, there is currently no sustainable business model for AI development. Finally, legal challenges, particularly regarding copyright, pose significant barriers to AI adoption in education.
Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, views AB 2370 as reinforcing existing qualifications for teaching at community colleges amid broader societal concerns about AI’s impact on the workforce.
“AB 2370 seems like a pre-emptive strike to foundationally say, well, one thing we cannot have, is displacement of faculty by some type of AI,” Galizio concluded.
