I didn’t intend for this week’s issue to focus so heavily on AI, but sometimes that’s just how the higher ed news cycle unfolds. With AI showing no signs of slowing down, it’s essential that we stay attuned to its growing impact on higher education and how the sector is adapting to its integration into everyday tools and platforms. We close this issue with a look at the results from a recent survey of chief business officers in higher education. 

After reading today’s issue, share your thoughts about the growing influence of AI in higher education in the comments! 

AI’s Growing Influence in Higher Ed 

From  

• Report: Faculty Often Missing From University Decisions on AI | Inside Higher Ed – A new report from the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) finds that faculty are often missing when institutions make decisions about AI. 

• AI and Higher Ed: An Impending Collapse | Inside Higher Ed – Robert Niebuhr believes that higher ed’s rush into using AI may lead to unintended consequences. 

• Leadership at risk: How AI could reshape university governance | University Business – Courtney Davis provides a framework for responsible AI leadership. 

• How to Grapple With the AI Already on Your Campus | The Chronicle of Higher Education – Marc Watkins offers guidance to help faculty better understand the AI already embedded in the software they use. 

• Instructors Will Now See AI Throughout a Widely Used Course Software | The Chronicle of Higher Education – Canvas will now include AI tools directly embedded in the learning management system.  

Our Thoughts 

You can feel it in every hallway conversation and committee meeting. Artificial intelligence is here—already embedded in course software, already changing how students learn, already shaping the daily work of faculty and staff. What we don’t yet have is a shared sense of where it’s going or who gets to decide what happens next. 

Several articles this week all take different angles on this question, but together they tell a story that feels strangely familiar: technology is advancing faster than our systems for governance, planning, and pedagogy. We’ve seen this movie before. The question is whether we’ll keep making the same mistakes. 

Let’s start with governance. In Inside Higher Ed’s article detailing the results of an AAUP report, we learn that nearly two-thirds of faculty say they’ve been left out of institutional conversations about AI. That might not be surprising, but it should be alarming. AI is already being embedded into learning management systems and back-end processes, often without faculty input or oversight. In a moment when AI could begin influencing everything from assignment scaffolding to student risk scoring, excluding faculty from these decisions creates real risks for trust, alignment, and ultimately, impact. 

That concern is reinforced in a University Business op-ed, which explores how AI could reshape university leadership. As AI becomes a default tool across many campus operations, Courtney Davis warns that shared governance structures may be sidelined. Strategic decisions could begin to follow data trends instead of institutional mission or academic values. Leaders might find themselves reacting to new technologies rather than guiding their responsible use. These themes are taken even further in Inside Higher Ed’s opinion piece, where Robert Niebuhr suggests that AI poses a genuine threat to the university’s core identity. In his view, the risk is not just about efficiency or automation but about hollowing out what makes higher education fundamentally human.  

That said, not every article leads with alarm. The Chronicle’s “How to Grapple With the AI Already on Your Campus” shifts the conversation toward adaptation. Marc Watkins encourages faculty and administrators to identify where AI is already operating on their campus, from advising chatbots to assessment tools, and to begin building guardrails. Rather than treating AI as one big issue, Watkins urges us to treat it as a set of tools, each with its own challenges and opportunities. This is not a call for panic, but a call for better awareness and shared responsibility. 

That perspective continues in The Chronicle’s recent reporting on Canvas, which is introducing a suite of generative AI tools aimed at supporting instructors. These features include summarizing class discussion posts, generating rubrics, creating quiz content, and even offering first-pass grading feedback. While these tools are entirely optional for faculty, the presence of these features signals a shift in how AI is being integrated into the instructional core. Rather than sitting on the edges of the classroom experience, AI is moving into day-to-day teaching practices. When AI becomes part of the platform by default, it can reshape the classroom experience before faculty have had a chance to fully understand or respond to the changes. 

Together, these articles point to a central tension. AI can streamline operations, support student learning, and enhance access, but it also presents a real risk to the human relationships, critical thinking, and trust that define higher education. We are at a crossroads. How we respond will shape not just our use of new tools, but the very culture and mission of our institutions. 

Right now, what seems to be missing is shared leadership. If we treat AI like just another IT implementation, we are likely to miss the deeper transformation that is unfolding. Faculty and staff should not only be consulted but actively engaged in shaping AI policies and practices. Also, they deserve clear guidance about how AI intersects with their roles. Leadership must resist the urge to chase short-term efficiencies without pausing to consider long-term consequences. 

AI is not going away. The real question is whether we are willing to slow down and decide what we want from it—intentionally, collaboratively, and with our eyes wide open. Because if we fail to ask that question, someone else will answer it for us. 

CBO Survey Results 

From Risk and Resilience | Inside Higher Ed 

The 2025 Inside Higher Ed/Hanover Research Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers finds CBOs report near-term financial uncertainty but have hope for the future. 

Our Thoughts  

I always enjoy reading through the annual results from Inside Higher Ed‘s Chief Business Officers (CBO) survey, even though it’s packed with content. These reports offer a valuable window into how institutional leaders are navigating this tumultuous period shaping higher education. It’s no secret that many colleges and universities, including prestigious ones, are reevaluating their budgets, cutting programs, and considering staff reductions. Against that backdrop, this year’s survey helps us better understand not just the decisions being made, but the underlying financial pressures driving them. 

This latest survey offers a revealing snapshot of how financial leaders are assessing this moment. The short version? There is plenty of anxiety in the near term, but also a cautious confidence that the sector will stabilize over the long run. Fifty-eight percent of CBOs rated their institution’s current financial health as good or excellent. That sounds promising, but it comes with a big asterisk. Just 43 percent of those same leaders expect to be in better financial shape next year, a sharp decline from the 56 percent who said the same thing last year. 

A big part of that uncertainty can be traced back to Washington, D.C. Federal policy has become a major disruptor to financial planning, especially when it comes to aid disbursement, tuition assistance programs, and international enrollment. The passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill earlier this summer only added to the confusion. Mass layoffs at the Department of Education have raised real concerns about how and when federal student aid dollars will be distributed this fall. And looming cuts to other public programs, such as Medicaid, could have indirect effects that institutions have not yet fully accounted for. 

Even amid all this turbulence, the majority of CBOs still express long-term optimism. Seventy-three percent are confident their institution will be financially stable over the next five years. That confidence drops a bit compared to last year’s numbers, but the belief in higher education’s resilience remains strong. The question now is whether that optimism is rooted in realistic planning or a lingering belief that the traditional model will hold. The report hints at a split. While many institutions are taking strategic steps like consolidating programs, improving operational efficiency, and investing in retention, just 28 percent of CBOs report high confidence in their current business model. That gap suggests we still have work to do.