Ohio State Mandates AI Fluency for All Students

Ohio State University has taken a bold step by making artificial intelligence fluency a graduation requirement for all undergraduates, aiming to prepare students for a future in which AI plays a central role across industries.

University President Walter "Ted" Carter Jr. said the initiative reflects an urgent need to adapt education to emerging technologies. "Ohio State has an opportunity and responsibility to prepare students to not just keep up, but lead in this workforce of the future," Carter said. "Artificial intelligence is transforming the way we live, work, teach and learn. In the not-so-distant future, every job, in every industry, is going to be [affected] in some way by AI."

Provost Ravi Bellamkonda added that the "AI Fluency" program aims to produce graduates who are "bilingual"—proficient in both their chosen field and AI applications relevant to their discipline.

The university will embed AI training across the undergraduate curriculum, while guiding faculty to uphold academic integrity. Associate Professor Steven Brown of philosophy cautioned against banning AI outright. After reviewing AI-assisted essays, he said he encountered "a lot of really creative ideas," adding: "It would be a disaster for our students to have no idea how to effectively use one of the most powerful tools that humanity has ever created."

Ohio State's move reflects broader shifts in higher education, where institutions are exploring how to integrate AI without sacrificing critical thinking or integrity. A recent survey found that 55% of students who used generative AI for coursework reported mixed effects on their thinking skills—some benefits, but also a tendency to think less deeply—while 27% reported net positive effects and 7% reported negative effects.

Meanwhile, educators express deep reservations. Morgan Sanchez, a sociology professor at San Jose State University, criticized aggressive AI adoption. In an opinion piece, she argued the "AI Everywhere" approach risks undermining critical thinking and academic engagement, noting generative AI can produce complete assignment-ready content that facilitates dishonesty. Sanchez warned that treating education like a content transaction diminishes learning's core purpose.

Other experts offer more sober perspectives. A Vox-published education researcher cautioned that while AI may shift methods of dishonesty, it hasn't triggered a surge in cheating—overall rates remain similar to pre-AI levels. Still, clarity around acceptable usage is lacking: only about 10% of teachers reportedly have explicit AI policies.