On May 5, 2026, a new set of rules regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence use in the classroom was sent out to all PV students through the PV counselors.
The two-page digital pamphlet was centered entirely on mindful Gen AI use, displaying steps students can take to use programs like ChatGPT on projects and essays with teacher approval. With a clear MLA citation and prompts used, students have now been given district approval to offload parts of the critical thinking process.
The AI literacy lessons introduced at the beginning of the semester have received heavy criticism from the student body, with many seniors in particular skipping the lessons as a form of protest against the promotion of Gen AI. Others skipped because they simply viewed the biweekly 22-minute chats as a waste of their time.
That sentiment is not entirely ungrounded, as the short time period of each lesson has not allowed for productive conversation on the intricacies of AI. Students are often seen using phones during instruction or skipping their sessions entirely because of this problem.
During a seventh period instruction of the AI literacy lesson at the start of May, teachers even allowed students to take over the presentation. This then led to many slides getting completely skipped over, including ones which allowed for open discussion by students. A video covering the environmental considerations of Gen AI was also largely ignored, with students making the video play at two times speed and jumping around parts of the video.
Such a lack of attention from both students and staff has multiple sources of blame, but one key component is the wordy and overly broad construction of the lessons’ presentational slides.
While AI as a whole carries a lot of ethical considerations, the broader environmental and social concerns surrounding Gen AI are largely absent from the AI literacy slides. Instead, there are extensive paragraphs on algorithmic AI and self-driving vehicles—topics which do not address the district’s greatest AI literacy issues.
A last-ditch effort to appear knowledgeable on AI manifested in the aforementioned pamphlet, furthering narratives which remain largely silent about Gen AI’s downfalls.
For one, both the lessons and the pamphlet fail to mention concerns surrounding the placement of Gen AI data centers in predominantly Black and brown communities.
Data centers are being proposed all over the United States, yet critics have noted that many projects have disproportionately affected lower-income and minority communities. In South Carolina, for example, a data center’s current location in Colleton County—a predominantly Black community—came after a similar project was rejected in a whiter county.
These data centers, which help PV’s predominantly white and middle to upper class students cheat on essays and projects, come with concerns about energy consumption, water use and environmental strain in already vulnerable communities.
Silence on this matter can be attributed to PV’s affluent and white student body, as they were those most catered to by the district’s digital programming. As a result, broader conversations about the societal costs of AI were watered down into simplified statements that “there is good and bad to Gen AI.”
In an AI literacy lesson about image generation and bias, there was discussion focused primarily on gender discrepancies in Gen AI depictions, rather than racial ones. Students quickly identified when AI generated only male doctors, but many overlooked another issue: nearly all the generated doctors were white.
PV senior Eva Vargas believes the biases present in AI, which reflect the society and data it is trained on, needs to be addressed more directly before PV embraces Gen AI in classrooms.
“AI cannot think for itself. It is trained by people, and people always always always have inherent biases. So, AI inevitably will produce things that are biased and often offensive,” Vargas said.
Vargas added, “I think PV needs to go way more into depth about these potential biases if they are even going to consider starting to use AI in the classroom. ”
Furthermore, the Gen AI pamphlet included a citation example using “To Kill a Mockingbird” for an essay, a likely unintentional but questionable choice upon further inspection.
Harper Lee’s novel, a cornerstone of sophomore English curriculum at PV, teaches themes of empathy and racial inequality in American history. Promoting the summarization of the work to a predominantly white student body not only suggests that critical thinking can be offsourced, but also risks discouraging students from engaging with perspectives and life experiences different from their own.
PV art teacher Ashley Willits believes many students approach Gen AI as a shortcut rather than a tool. “There is always going to be a select group of students that follow the rules and those that don’t. As much as we’d like for students to take the necessary steps and precautions, there is always going to be that shortcut—which, I believe, is what Generative AI is,” she said.
Willits added, “Shortcuts like this bypass the actual problem solving and critical thinking skills necessary to understand any new piece of information.”
Vargas echoed similar concerns regarding enforcement of citation requirements. “They (the students) aren’t doing it now, so why would they start?” she said.
While PV has argued that it is simply adapting to changes in society, critics believe the shift is built on unstable foundations. The companies promoting Gen AI stand to profit enormously from automation and reduced human labor, while younger generations may face the loss of entry-level jobs and creative skills.
Open AI and other AI companies have already missed many revenue targets this year. What has kept them afloat is the proliferation of the “AI is inevitable” viewpoint by tech oligarchs and others in power. This has left millions of Americans believing that Gen AI is the future, including those who run PV, when the reality is much more uncertain and complicated.
The new guidelines ultimately fail to accomplish what they claim to represent. Rather than encouraging thoughtful engagement with AI, they risk prioritizing appearances of technological progress while overlooking the broader ethical, racial and educational concerns surrounding Gen AI use.
