{shortcode-2913b8a3732bb25ffa6d09ee8c9a72caccb5f54c}

It’s midterm season. Like clockwork, I notice the uptick of sleep-deprived faces, energy drinks in the dining hall, and computer screens with ChatGPT open.

We are over halfway through the academic semester and, given that one survey found almost 90 percent of Harvard students use generative artificial intelligence tools, its relationship to our college experience is hard to overstate.

With the stakes of this “unique moment in history” so high, Harvard’s AI policy needs a check in — one driven by the people actually filling its classrooms.

Like any classroom norm, generative AI policy impacts the day-to-day learning of Harvard students, making their input valuable in its evaluation. The University must expand and solidify its commitment to student feedback on generative AI policies.

In broad terms, Harvard’s AI policy “supports responsible experimentation” and encourages students to clarify course-specific AI policies with relevant instructors. Professors at the College are expected to create their own AI policies which can range from detailed to general.

But while there are three working groups for faculty to explore the impact of AI in Harvard classrooms, there is relatively little opportunity for students to voice their concerns. Because of its central role in campus discourse, assigning a distinct space for students to communicate their AI-policy related concerns to the University is crucial.

Some Harvard students think AI doesn’t belong in the humanities, or that tests should be AI-proof, or that Harvard can more equitably prepare students to use AI in their careers. In the dining hall, I frequently hear students discussing AI use for their courses. Whatever their position may be, students have thoughts on the issue.

These thoughts need a vehicle for reaching administrators. Harvard consistently provides a platform for discussing how AI will shape student education — it only makes sense that it incorporates student feedback into the policies it actually sets.

If the University wants students to be more engaged in courses, eliciting the student perspective on classroom AI policy is one step in the right direction. Students are the best source to ask about what types of assignments justify AI use. They can provide feedback on the clarity of individual course policies, and how this may influence student views on participating and succeeding in a course. They can also provide insight on how the University might effectively incorporate AI literacy into its departments in the future.

At this point, completing coursework at Harvard means engaging with AI to some extent. Harvard administrators are aware of this reality and can take this opportunity to apply student feedback on classroom AI policy.

For anyone worried about lack of value in student contributions, undergraduates have demonstrated the capacity to thoughtfully engage in AI-related issues. They participate in initiatives and clubs focused on AI policy, as well as courses offered by the College, ranging from the use of AI for social impact to AI in child development.

A group of undergraduates even contributed to a proposed Harvard AI Code of Conduct, which was eventually submitted to the University in 2023. Harvard’s most recent AI policy aligns with one of their key requests: Official, written policy clearly stating permitted and prohibited uses of generative AI tools in all courses. But their recommendations include more details, like requiring course policies to “distinguish carefully between categories of generative AI tools and specific tools.” This kind of insight is valuable to the University, and there should be a regular way for it to reach administrators.

Models like Northeastern University’s recently established student government AI advisory board identify clear objectives for the student body to communicate “directly with University leaders” — Harvard can take inspiration from this approach.

We may not be able to change the stress of midterms, but we can voice our thoughts on AI in the classroom and expect Harvard to listen.

Ana Cabrera Antkowiak ’28, a Crimson Editorial editor, is a Social Studies concentrator in Currier House.