Shared governance & the academic difference
How this framework respects faculty authority, and why governing AI in higher education is not the same as governing it in a company.
Shared governance: who decides what
AI doesn't change the lines of academic authority, and this framework is built to map onto them rather than override them. It informs the faculty's deliberation, it does not replace it.
Faculty hold primary authority
The academic core. These belong to the faculty through shared governance, the framework informs them, it does not decide them.
- Curriculum & program design
- Instructional methods & AI use in the classroom
- Assessment design & academic-integrity standards
- Scholarly & research use of AI
Decided together, through governance
Co-designed by faculty, administration, and students, then ratified through the bodies that already hold legitimacy.
- Institution-wide AI principles & values
- Campus AI policy & acceptable use
- Risk tiers & proportionate review
- Program-level student AI-literacy outcomes
Operational & stewardship roles
Where administration and IT carry the weight, in service of the academic mission, not in place of it.
- Tool procurement, contracts & vendor management
- Data classification & security controls
- System documentation & the registry
- Infrastructure & enterprise integration
Why higher education governs AI differently
Most AI-governance advice is written for corporations. Higher education is not a company, and governing AI well means starting from what makes the academy distinct.