Students refuse generative AI as conscientious objectors
In a university assignment that required generative AI, seven of eight student groups chose not to use it, citing concerns from cognitive dependence to environmental impact and bias. Two philosophy professors argue a generation of AI conscientious objectors exists — and higher education should not ignore them.
Summary
Two philosophy professors — Jenny, who rejects generative AI, and Carla, who uses it judiciously — recount, in an opinion piece in Inside Higher Ed, a case from one of Carla's courses: a group assignment that required students to use generative AI and reflect critically on it. The students' first question was "what if we don't want to use GenAI?". Faced with the pushback, Carla created a "conscientious objector" option. Seven of the eight groups chose not to use AI; the eighth experimented with it but preferred to work without it. The authors argue that higher education should recognize that these students exist and, where possible, make room for them.
In practice
The students did not reject AI out of ignorance. They read about and discussed generative AI before deciding, and in their reflections cited cognitive dependence, environmental impact, racial and gender bias, misinformation, academic integrity, and worker exploitation. They said they wanted to wrestle with difficult readings, debate ideas together, and do the work — including the mundane work — rather than outsource it to a model.
The authors argue that the narrative that "all students use AI now" is wrong, and that educators should listen to these students rather than dismiss them as liars. The piece cites surveys without identifying the primary source: 61% of Americans under 30 worry that AI will worsen creative thinking; 58% worry it will impair the ability to form relationships; and 31% of Gen Z report "anger" about AI, up from 22% the previous year. It also cites a study, again without a named source, claiming 95% of businesses get zero return on their AI investments.
What we still don't know
- The figures cited (61%, 58%, 31%, 95%) appear in the piece without identifying the underlying surveys or studies, or their methodology — they are not verifiable from the text.
- The case comes from a single course at an unnamed university; it is an account, not a systematic study of AI conscientious objection.
- The authors defend academic freedom and do not propose forcing anyone to accept objections: the argument is about awareness, not mandate.
Why it matters
- Pushes back on the narrative of universal AI adoption among the young: informed resistance exists, grounded in moral and cognitive reasons.
- Names a concept — the AI "conscientious objector" — that could shape debates over assessment and student autonomy in higher education.
- Revalues human skills (close reading, critical thinking, argumentation) as more, not less, relevant in an era of hallucinations and persuasive-but-wrong answers.
- Caveat: this is an opinion piece, and the numbers underpinning the argument carry no identified primary source.