# Faculty at Arizona State University Raise Concerns Over AI-Powered Course Builder
Arizona State University has launched a pilot program using artificial intelligence to automate course design, triggering pushback from faculty who worry the tool undervalues educator expertise and may compromise learning quality.
The AI-powered course builder, currently in testing phases at ASU, automatically generates course structures, learning objectives, and potentially content frameworks. Faculty members express concern that the system reduces their professional judgment to a secondary role. Educators argue that course design requires nuanced understanding of student needs, disciplinary standards, and pedagogical best practices that algorithms cannot replicate.
The tool raises two central issues. First, it threatens academic autonomy. Professors traditionally shape their courses based on years of expertise, research in their fields, and knowledge of how their specific students learn. Automated systems risk producing generic courses that fail to reflect institutional or departmental values. Second, there are questions about student impact. Faculty worry that AI-generated courses may lack coherence, contain errors, or miss opportunities to develop critical thinking skills that come from deliberate instructional design by subject-matter experts.
ASU has not publicly detailed how the tool functions, what data it uses, or how faculty feedback will influence its continued development. This opacity fuels concern among educators who want transparency before broader implementation.
The university's move reflects a broader trend of institutions experimenting with generative AI to reduce workload and cut costs. However, faculty at ASU argue that education is not like other sectors where automation can simply replace human work. Teaching requires relationship-building, flexibility, and ethical responsibility to students.
The outcome of ASU's pilot will likely influence how other universities approach similar tools. Faculty pushback suggests that institutions cannot simply impose AI systems on educators without meaningful consultation, demonstrating that educators remain central to decisions about how technology enters the classroom.