An Open Letter to the Teaching Committee on AI Disclosure

By: Weillin Feng 

I am Weillin Feng, a 1L SBA Senator. This March, I met with Dean Brian Ray and Dean Jonathan Witmer-Rich to address concerns students have about our professors using AI in grading. They informed me that, while the school has no formal policy on the matter, they expect professors not to use AI in any part of the scoring process. Furthermore, they promised to encourage the Teaching Committee, a body within the faculty government, to work with the SBA and hear student voices as they iron out a policy. As such, on behalf of the SBA, I am sending this letter to the Teaching Committee urging for an AI disclosure requirement for professors. The following is an excerpt, and the QR code leads to the full letter. I thank you for your attention and welcome any comments or questions. I can be reached at my email, w.feng82@vikes.csuohio.edu. 

   The Student Bar Association of Cleveland State University College of Law urges the Teaching Committee to adopt a disclosure requirement regarding the use of generative artificial intelligence ("GenAI") tools among professors. Specifically, we ask that professors disclose their use of GenAI tools, as well as the prompts and parameters used, whenever such tools substantially replace the professor's legal knowledge or judgment. That might happen when a professor substantially relies on GenAI to generate a question set or provide feedback on a practice exam, but not for more trivial matters like organizing a syllabus or responding to emails. We further encourage professors to err on the side of disclosure whenever practicable. We also reiterate the Deans' expectation that professors abstain entirely from using GenAI tools to make decisions in the scoring of graded assessments. We understand that GenAI promises massive gains in efficiency, but we feel that a disclosure requirement is in-line with professional ethical standards in the legal and educational fields and is necessary for students' confidence in their education. 

   Formal Opinion 512, issued July 24, 2024, details the American Bar Association's current guidelines for practicing attorneys' ethical use of GenAI. One of the six responsibilities they outline is the duty to communicate. Clients are entitled to know whether their lawyer is "exercising independent judgment or. . . deferring to the output of a [GenAI] tool." Lawyers are thus required to disclose their use of GenAI to clients when "the output will influence a significant decision in the representation." Likewise, a client who selects a lawyer for their particular knowledge or skills has a reasonable expectation, unless notified otherwise, that their lawyer will not substitute their knowledge or skill for those of a GenAI tool. Courts across the country have also begun implementing local rules that compel the disclosure of GenAI use in any court filings. 

   The professor-student relation is sufficiently analogous to the attorney-client relation to warrant similar responsibilities. A client hires a lawyer because they value that lawyer's professional expertise. That lawyer then must provide their own professional expertise to the client. They cannot substitute their legal knowledge or skills for those of another, even if that other is fully competent, without the client's knowledge. Likewise, students attend law schools with accomplished faculty because they are seeking the professional expertise of those professors. If the professor replaces any part of their professional knowledge, skills, or judgment with those of another, the students ought to know about it. Even if the replacement is perfectly competent, this is a matter of ethical responsibility.