Thomas College leaves AI coursework decisions to faculty in $3 million program

Thomas College wants AI literacy across its academic programs, but professors will decide whether students use the technology in class. In comments published November 6 by The College Fix, President Jeannine Uzzi explained a key boundary for the college’s $3 million federal initiative: it will assess responsible AI use, rather than assume the tools improve learning.

The comments add implementation details to an award announced October 6, rather than mark a new grant. The private college in Waterville, Maine, received the funding through the U.S. Department of Education’s Title III Strengthening Institutions Program. Its multi-year project, “Building the College of the Future: Integrating Artificial Intelligence Across the Curriculum,” aims to give every graduate practical, critical and ethical AI literacy.

From a federal award to faculty support

The October announcement set out an institution-wide effort, not a program confined to computing students. It committed funding to several full-time positions, faculty development and hands-on facilities. Provost Jeremy Qualls described the award as support for the college’s career-driven education, with the goal of preparing graduates to use technology in their future work.

By October 12, Uzzi had also described possible additions to the academic offering. She told WGME that the college was considering new majors, including AI management, and hoped to pair AI courses with existing business classes. At that stage, the number of new courses or majors had not been decided; those possibilities were not a finalized course catalog.

Her November comments put a duration and purpose on one planned hire: an AI Specialist in Residence will work full-time for two years. The specialist will help professors understand how AI is changing their disciplines, supporting faculty in fields including English, biology and business as they consider what students will encounter after graduation.

Uzzi’s rationale was that disciplinary expertise does not automatically include familiarity with AI’s effects. A professor who earned a doctorate a decade ago, she said, would not necessarily have studied how the technology might affect publishing, journalism or medical research. The planned specialist is intended to help faculty address that gap.

Beyond the specialist

• Teaching support: The grant will fund professional development, curriculum revisions and software subscriptions, alongside the new positions intended to support the broader initiative.
• Hands-on facilities: The college plans a design space with equipment for fabrication, testing, robotics, automation, data acquisition and computer-aided design.
• Resource awareness: The college’s original announcement also included teaching about the resource needs and sustainability aspects of AI, alongside access and applied learning.

Training does not dictate classroom rules

Uzzi placed decisions about coursework with faculty because they are the experts in their subjects. Once trained in AI’s uses and effects, individual professors will decide if, how and when students should use it. The college’s ambition to reach every academic program therefore does not amount to a requirement that every professor assign work using AI.

She also addressed academic integrity, student privacy and the risk of overdependence. Her preferred response is adaptation rather than prohibition: faculty and administrators should learn about the technology, teach its risks and appropriate uses, and require students to cite their AI use. She compared that adjustment with earlier responses to Google, Wikipedia and smartphones.

We cannot assume AI will improve student learning. AI was not designed for that purpose, so that is not something we will assess.

Jeannine Uzzi, Thomas College president, speaking to The College Fix

The test is responsible use

Instead, Uzzi said the college will evaluate whether students understand how to use AI tools appropriately and responsibly. That places the stated assessment on students’ judgment about using the technology, rather than on a presumed improvement in how well they learn other subjects. It is a distinction between preparing students to work with AI and claiming AI makes teaching more effective.

The employment argument remains central to Uzzi’s approach. She cited AI use in accounting, banking, healthcare, software development and wealth management. In her October statement, she also emphasized that students need to recognize the technology’s limitations and know when human judgment should take precedence over AI-generated information. Responsible use, in that framing, includes knowing when not to defer to the output.