The Student Assembly voted to establish a Technology Committee during Thursday’s meeting, setting the stage for undergraduate involvement in University technology policy.
Resolution 5: Establishing The Technology Committee, passed unanimously at the Assembly meeting. The new committee is designed to address and advise on changing technology policies in the face of generative AI and other emerging technologies.
The committee will “provide recommendations on policies, programs, and initiatives,” and will “serve as the primary student voice on issues including digital tools … and policies concerning merging technologies such as generative AI,” according to the resolution.
Hayden Watkins ’28, the Assembly vice president for finance, was one of the sponsors of the resolution, which was designed to improve channels of communication with administration regarding technology.
“The [Technology Committee] will be a fantastic avenue for us students to communicate with administration and advise the Student Assembly on student perspectives on AI, hate speech on social media, and other issues relating to technology,” Watkins wrote in a statement sent to The Sun.
According to the resolution, the University has “historically relied on ad hoc student surveys and feedback mechanisms” to learn student perspectives, "but no formal or consistent channel exists for student input on University-wide technology governance decisions."
While formal policy decisions relating to technology and its usage are done by University administrators, Student Assembly Bylaws state that the Assembly may create committees to “review all policies and programs … that create policy directly affecting student life.”
Membership of the committee will be selected by the Assembly and the IT Governance Liaison will serve as its chair.
In an email sent to students on August 28 from the Office of the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education, the University acknowledged that while new technologies like generative artificial intelligence tools are “changing the educational landscape” and offer “incredible opportunities for learning,” they can also present various risks if used improperly.
However, the email did not establish a uniform AI policy, leaving specific policies up to individual professors in alignment with the existing Code of Academic Integrity and the undergraduate Essential Guide to Academic Integrity.
“Faculty will likely set different parameters around the appropriate use of generative AI in their courses," the email read. “It is your responsibility to pay close attention to their course-specific guidelines.”
This approach mirrors peer institutions, which have been hesitant to issue bans on the use of generative AI, though schools including Columbia and Princeton have prohibited the use of AI for academics without instructor approval.
