Intersection of technology and education, and a faculty retreat

The challenge for academia is to ensure that, even as the medium changes, the purpose of learning remains human

Dear Mr Rector,

Thank you for the retreat. It offered a rare chance to pause, step back from responsibilities and think collectively about "By Love, serve one another." As always, the timing - after the summer break and before the semester's "roller-coaster ride" – was especially meaningful for the FCC community.

What set this retreat apart was its focus on the intersection of technology and education. With the compelling theme 'The AI Paradox: Crisis or Catalyst for HEIs' and strong speakers, the retreat became a springboard for deeper reflection on how artificial intelligence is already shaping and will continue to influence our work as educators. Beyond its traditional aims of intellectual rejuvenation, collegial relationships, faculty well-being and job satisfaction, the event invited us to confront the practical and philosophical questions AI presents for higher education.

Joe Sabado from UCSB, in his keynote speech, elaborated the concept of an AI-integrated campus. Alas, some public office-holders equate it only with providing free WiFi with their names as SSID. My comment may appear political, but it is more about a prevailing mindset - one that can unintentionally preserve the status quo and impede the evolution of HEIs. Highlighting the concept of the multiversity as a complex collection of diverse communities and purposes, Sabado pondered the million-dollar question. Overreliance on AI – whose concern is this? Which generation? Humanists? Parents? Well, it should concern every living being on earth. Period.

Many academics in Pakistan, too, are concerned, arguing that universities should move beyond trying to ban or detect AI-generated work, as proposed in a recent HEC directive and instead focus on what education is meant to achieve: developing students' capacity to think, judge, create and solve problems. While students should be transparent about their use of AI, detection tools are unreliable and should not be used as evidence of misconduct. It is rightly suggested that AI should be used differently at different stages of education: it can improve the expertise of faculty and advanced researchers, but in the early learning years it can replace the effort that guarantees understanding and wisdom. Hence, the revisions in pedagogies, assignments, rubrics and grading criteria. Other ideas include implementing flipped classrooms, conducting in-class evaluations, having students compare and critique AI-generated outputs and assigning tasks in segments - permitting AI use in early stages but requiring critical analysis and reflection in later to highlight human intellectual contributions.

One thing we all agree on is that education should come first; AI should remain a tool in its service. The more difficult question is whether any effective tool can remain merely a tool once it begins to reshape the environment in which learning takes place. Years ago, McLuhan wrestled with a similar question in his exploration of the relationship between media and their effects on society. His famous proposition that "the medium is the message" - along with his amusing variations on message, mass age, mess age and massage - was less a prescription than an invitation to examine how media alters the environments in which we live. His light-bulb analogy is useful here: the electric light carries no particular message, yet its mere presence creates an entirely new environment. Perhaps AI presents academia with a similar, though not identical, dilemma. Is education changing because AI has essentially modified how we learn, or has AI exposed the need for changes in educational practices? Like the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg, there may be no simple answer. What matters is that we do not allow the tool to dictate the purpose of education. The challenge for academia is to ensure that, even as the medium changes, the purpose of learning remains human.

I shall conclude by affirming that faculty retreat is as vital as investing in infrastructure. Buildings do not collaborate. Policies do not mentor students. Departments do not generate ideas. People do.

Best regards,

Bano

August 2026