About us

UWL FYWP and WC Joint Position Statement on GenAI and Writing  

We understand that for many faculty we’re at a terrifying crossroads—do we contend with Generative AI (GenAI) in our classrooms even though it seems to shift by the minute and we’re all already so overwhelmed by the task of simply teaching writing? Or do we decide, not in my backyard—not in my classroom—and draw a firm line in the sand? In many ways, the decision has already been made for us and some aspects of GenAI are already certain. 

With each innovation, we’ve had to decide whether our stance toward our students will be disciplinarian or collaborative – will we police their writing processes or guide them? Will we spend our time ferreting out errors and missteps or offering feedback and instruction? The futility of “catching” students aside, this decision will determine our perspectives on our jobs, our roles as educators, and our abilities to do our work with heart and with balance. GenAI has revealed longstanding weak points in our educational systems—from the highest levels to the classroom and we are at an inflection point where we can (re)examine both our writing pedagogy and our overall philosophies for higher education. 

Given the above we must acknowledge that 

• GenAI is not a fad, and our students are already using it.  
• GenAI is a tool, but how we use it is still under discussion. 
• Understanding how to responsibly and ethically use GenAI will be expected in future workplaces.  
• Writing instructors should expect that students and colleagues will come to us with questions about GenAI and we should be prepared to share resources and perspectives on GenAI use and writing.  
• Because we are the recognized disciplinary and pedagogical experts on writing it is the responsibility of writing instructors to teach students how to use GenAI ethically, responsibly, and transparently. 

So, where does that leave us? As two sites of writing instruction at UWL, the FYWP and the WC feel compelled to respond to this moment with some expectations and guidance for GenAI use. Following the recommendations from the “MLA-CCCC Joint Task Force on Writing and AI Working Paper:  Overview of the Issues, Statement of Principles, and Recommendations” and their “call for faculty involvement in the formation and evaluation of policies about AI rather than a top-down approach (11),” we’re making the first of what is likely to be many attempts to articulate our expectations for the ethical, responsible, and transparent use of GenAI in FYW classes and in the WC.  

Ethics 

• We are ethically obligated to discuss GenAI in some form in our writing classes and in the WC.  
• We are ethically obligated to make sure that all our students have an adequate education on how to use writing tools—including GenAI. 
• Taking a punitive stance on GenAI places us at odds with our students and affects our relationships. Ethical teaching requires that instructors resist approaching students from a “deficit” perspective – a belief that our job is to find where the student is weak, unreliable, dishonest, or deceptive. 
• Uploading student work to plagiarism detectors is unethical because students have not given consent for their work to be shared with the AI machine.  
• GenAI should not be an opportunity for student surveillance and surveilling students may reinforce existing biases faced by many of our students, especially BIPOC students. 

Responsibility 

• Faculty are responsible for providing students with guidance on how GenAI is used in their classes. (More about this under “Transparency.”) 
• Students are responsible for communicating with faculty when they have questions and/or are uncertain about if their use of GenAI meets course expectations.  
• Faculty are responsible for helping writing students to develop critical literacy skills, including how to use GenAI as a tool for intellectual and ethical exploration of ideas at any stage of the writing process.
• The Writing Center’s stated mission is to support students from all disciplines in becoming more effective and confident writers; this mission includes meeting students where they are and not judging how they approach writing tasks, which may mean helping them see how and when to ethically and effectively use supports like GenAI or other technologies.
• The Writing Center works with students from many disciplines and must help students understand and abide by their professors’ guidelines and policies regarding GenAI. 

Transparency 

• Faculty are responsible for creating accessible policies in their syllabi and course assignments for the appropriate or expected use of GenAI, including how students should cite their use of the tool. Failure to acknowledge or discuss GenAI with our students may lead to misuse of this tool. 
• Faculty should also be clear about their own gaps in knowledge and understanding of new technologies and, therefore, open and responsive to learning from students about them and negotiating with students about how these new tools can and should be used in their classroom.  
• If faculty choose to limit or restrict use of GenAI, they should be clear about why and identify what skills and concepts they value that would be undercut by using the tools.  
• The Writing Center should regularly ask clients to talk about how they have used GenAI and what their assignment guidelines say about it to promote productive and ethical use of the tools.  
• Writing Center tutors should describe how the tutor used GenAI writing assistance during a tutoring session if a client is required to verify their use of the Writing Center (via reporting slip or email to professor). 

Approved by the Composition Committee spring 2024.