Open Praxis: The Manifesto for Teaching and Learning in a Time of Generative AI – A Critical Collective Stance to Better Navigate the Future
The manifesto critically examines generative AI in higher education, arguing that while it offers personalized learning and efficiency, it also risks reinforcing biases, eroding human creativity and judgment, and devaluing educators. It calls for ethical, evidence-based approaches that prioritize AI literacy and rethinking education to maintain human agency.
Open Praxis: The Manifesto for Teaching and Learning in a Time of Generative AI – A Critical Collective Stance to Better Navigate the Future
Summary of https://openpraxis.org/articles/777/files/6749b446d17e9.pdf
This document presents a collaboratively written manifesto offering a critical examination of the integration of Generative AI (GenAI) in higher education. It identifies both the positive and negative aspects of GenAI's influence on teaching and learning, stressing that it is not a neutral tool and risks reinforcing existing biases.
The manifesto calls for research-backed decision-making to ensure GenAI enhances human agency and promotes ethical responsibility in education. It also acknowledges that while GenAI has potential, educators must also think about the deprofessionalization of the education field if AI tools increasingly automate tasks like grading, tutoring, and content delivery, potentially leading to job displacement and reduced opportunities for educators.
The text explores the importance of AI literacy for users and also looks to the risks of human-AI symbiosis, including the erosion of human judgement, autonomy and creative agency. The authors hope to encourage debate and offer insight into the future of GenAI in educational contexts.
Here are the five main takeaways:
- GenAI is not a neutral tool. It reflects worldviews and can reinforce biases, potentially marginalizing diverse voices.
- GenAI can both enhance and diminish essential human elements in education. While it offers potential for personalized learning and efficiency, it also risks eroding creativity, critical thinking, and empathy.
- Ethical considerations are paramount. Issues such as bias, fairness, transparency, and data security must be addressed to ensure responsible deployment of GenAI.
- Educators, administrators, and policymakers need to rethink education. Continuing with 'business as usual' is not an option. A shift is needed to emphasize learning processes and adapt assessment methods.
- Robust, evidence-based research is crucial. Decisions about integrating GenAI in education should be guided by a deep understanding of its impacts.
Related Articles
Students as Agent Builders: How Role-Based Access (RBAC) Makes It Possible
How ibl.ai’s role-based access control (RBAC) enables students to safely design and build real AI agents—mirroring industry-grade systems—while institutions retain full governance, security, and faculty oversight.
AI Equity as Infrastructure: Why Equitable Access to Institutional AI Must Be Treated as a Campus Utility — Not a Privilege
Why AI must be treated as shared campus infrastructure—closing the equity gap between students who can afford premium tools and those who can’t, and showing how ibl.ai enables affordable, governed AI access for all.
Pilot Fatigue and the Cost of Hesitation: Why Campuses Are Stuck in Endless Proof-of-Concept Cycles
Why higher education’s cautious pilot culture has become a roadblock to innovation—and how usage-based, scalable AI frameworks like ibl.ai’s help institutions escape “demo purgatory” and move confidently to production.
AI Literacy as Institutional Resilience: Equipping Faculty, Staff, and Administrators with Practical AI Fluency
How universities can turn AI literacy into institutional resilience—equipping every stakeholder with practical fluency, transparency, and confidence through explainable, campus-owned AI systems.