Professors Warn AI Is Destroying the University and Learning Itself

A fierce debate over the future of academia has erupted following the publication of a scathing new critique titled "AI is Destroying the University and Learning Itself," which argues that generative artificial intelligence is not merely a tool for cheating, but a force that is actively dismantling the fundamental purpose of higher education.

The essay, authored by San Francisco State University professor Ronald Purser and published in the November/December 2025 issue of Current Affairs, has become a lightning rod for a growing movement of educators who believe the university system is entering a "death spiral" of automation.

The "Hollow Loop" of Education
The core of the argument is that AI has created a "hollow loop" where no actual human learning occurs. In this scenario, students use tools like ChatGPT to generate essays they do not write, and overworked professors use AI grading tools to assess papers they do not read.

"Students use AI to write papers, professors use AI to grade them, degrees become meaningless, and tech companies make fortunes," Purser writes. "Welcome to the death of higher education."

This sentiment is echoed by faculty across the U.S. and UK, who report a phenomenon known as "cognitive offloading." Because AI can instantly synthesize information, students are bypassing the critical struggle of organizing their own thoughts—a process that is essential for deep learning. As a result, educators warn of a generation graduating with degrees but without the ability to think critically or construct an argument independently.

"Guinea Pigs" in an Unregulated Experiment
The backlash is also directed at university administrators who are rushing to embrace AI partnerships. The report highlights the California State University (CSU) system's recent partnership with OpenAI as a prime example of "academic capitalism," where students serve as test subjects for tech giants.

"The introduction of AI in higher education is essentially an unregulated experiment," argue professors Martha Kenney and Lincoln, who were cited in the report. They question why tuition-paying students should be used as "guinea pigs" to train the very algorithms that may devalue their future labor.

From Panic to "Resigned Embrace"
The report notes a disturbing shift in faculty psychology. Initial panic over plagiarism has given way to a "resigned embrace," where professors, feeling defeated by the undetectable nature of AI text, are simply accepting the technology to survive.

Workshops on "AI Literacy" are popping up on campuses globally, but critics argue these are merely coping mechanisms for a broken system. The "AI-ready" university, they claim, is one where the rigorous standards of the humanities are replaced by "prompt engineering."

A Return to Analog?
In response to this crisis, a quiet counter-revolution is beginning. Some professors are banning digital devices entirely, returning to "blue book" exams, oral defenses, and in-class handwritten essays to ensure that the work being graded is actually the product of a human mind.

The warning from academia is clear: If the university cannot guarantee that a student has learned the material, the degree itself becomes a worthless piece of paper—or in this case, a PDF generated by a machine.