Decorum, Dean Butler! How the Academic Integrity and Use of AI Session at ISO Othered International Students

“What I lack in decorum, I make up for with an absence of tact.” 

Although former CT Senator Donald E. Williams Jr. meant the aforementioned as a joke, it appears Associate Dean of Students Kevin Butler did not—or so his rhetoric proved during the Academic Integrity and the Use of Artificial Intelligence session for International Student Orientation this summer. 

The timeliness of publishing an Op-Ed about Orientation in October is not lost on me, but for context, I spent the past few weeks doing some fact-checking about hearsay from earlier in the semester. 

When I heard mixed feedback about a talk given by Dean Butler at ISO, I wanted to get to the bottom of what sparked that discontent as a journalist, but also as an international student myself.

I confirmed with six orientation staffers present at the event, independently and under the condition of anonymity, that Dean Butler’s tone was remarkably harsh and fear-mongering toward international first-years regarding the use of AI during said session. 

Orientation leaders told me that Dean Butler’s messaging departed from a standard briefing of University policy regarding AI usage resulting in Honor Code violations and was, in tone as well as implication, excessively punitive and near-threatening. Four staffers confirmed that Dean Butler made the point that AI use may be particular to international students, especially in the case of English not being their first language. 

One struggles to think of a more tone-deaf address to noncitizens who applied to an American university in the midst of one of the most heightened immigration crackdowns in United States history—to first-years, many of whom had just arrived in the U.S. two to three days ago.

Aside from the general problem of promoting fear of disciplinary actions instead of inspiring interest in authentic learning, there is the troubling implication Dean Butler made in suggesting that international students are prone to use AI given that our first language isn’t English. 

“It was pointed out to me during the presentation, a point to which I agreed and reiterated, that some AI detectors produce false positives, but that any AI detection score above 25% may trigger further investigation and this may cause some difficulties, especially for some of our International students for whom English is not their first language…I speak from experience regarding this topic because we’ve had this happen to a number of International students over the past three years,” Dean Butler wrote in an email to The Argus. 

Firstly, it’s worth noting that within the “false positives” Butler refers to, many AI detectors have a bias that flags non-native English speakers’ work for plagiarism more as compared to native speakers! But there’s also an implicit division being made here: while domestic students get the general rundown of AI policy and academic integrity, noncitizens, in addition to the same general orientation, face an othering. We are met with the suggestion that University authorities anticipate academic misconduct specific to our status as international students whose first language may not be English. Let’s keep in mind that many international students submit their English-proficiency test scores upon applying to the University, and are all “expected to have advanced proficiency in spoken and written English” according to the international Admissions website. But I’m afraid English proficiency is simply not the point.

“I explained the range of typical sanctions at the Board’s disposal for first, second, and third violations of the Honor Code and that all of those consequences are determined fairly after a thorough review of the documentation and student and faculty participation in the student conduct process. I didn’t say anything about the consequences for International students being more severe, or involving federal agencies in our peer adjudication process, and I have confirmed this with ISO staff…” Dean Butler wrote, clarifying any hearsay about the involvement of federal authorities for academic misconduct.

Nonetheless, I need not remind anyone how prevalent that fear is for noncitizens. 

As a former international student orientation leader myself, my hope is that first-year international students don’t associate scare tactics with Wesleyan, and instead see the resistance to such rhetoric, the culture of holding authorities accountable, and the extraordinarily strong and diverse international community here, as more representative of the Wesleyan they will experience in their time here. 

There are amazing resources on campus to help us reckon with conscientious learning in this age of AI—the Writing Center, Peer Tutors, Academic Peer Advisors, not to mention faculty—the University should strive to maintain this robust response without tasteless addresses such as the one delivered at ISO. In a similar vein, there are incredible spaces supporting international students’ creativity on campus: the Office of International Student Affairs, orientation staff, weekly language conversation tables, Wesleyan International Speakers Program, and the International Student Advisory Board are a few that come to mind. 

With all that richness and community in mind, I, and many of my peers, reject any reduction of our identity as students who may be more prone to using AI based on our familiarity with English. As a forward-facing gesture, I would invite Dean Butler to attend a Wesleyan International Speakers Program meeting, which I believe is enough to dissuade any misgivings about noncitizens’ linguistic capabilities. 

Let this call for decorum not be conflated as a pro-AI position—at The Argus, we don’t publish AI-produced content as a rule, and it’s no small offense to ask our writers if they used AI for writing or editing. To our readers, it’s evident that we talk about it all the time. As newsroom leadership, however, we are invested in challenging stifling rhetoric, and upholding the right to dissent.

The power of discourse in our uncertain political times is well known, and we call on Wesleyan authorities to disavow any rhetoric that alienates international students. With the University’s recent rescission of Curricular Practical Training issuance for F-1 visa holders, our commitment to inclusivity becomes that much more important.

The Argus stands with international students, and benefits greatly from the contributions and leadership of countless writers, reporters, and editors from the international student community. Even as authorities on campus may proliferate misguided messaging in an attempt to prevent academic misconduct, we remain unwaveringly committed to creating a safe space for all students.

And, for the purpose of promoting more dialogue, I invite University authorities otherwise unaffiliated with the international community to engage with us—both for generating orientation messaging that’s informed by our perspective and for engagement’s own sake.

Really, you’d find we have so much to say.

Janhavi Munde can be reached at jmunde@wesleyan.edu.