Universities risk surrendering their intellectual autonomy to Silicon Valley’s influence as they rush to adopt AI, one professor says.
In an essay for the Civics of Technology Project — an education platform analyzing technology’s societal impact — Bruna Damiana Heinsfeld, an assistant professor of learning technologies at the University of Minnesota, said that colleges are allowing Big Tech to reshape what counts as knowledge, truth, and academic value.
From multimillion-dollar partnerships with AI vendors to classrooms infused with corporate branding, she said, universities are shifting toward a model where technological tools are bundled with the identity of the companies behind them.
As academic leaders scramble to look “AI-ready,” Heinsfeld warned that the sector is drifting from critical inquiry toward compliance, risking a future in which Silicon Valley, not educators, sets the terms of learning.
AI isn’t just a tool — it’s a worldview, she warns
Heinsfeld said AI tools promote a worldview where efficiency is presumed to be a virtue, scale is inherently desirable, and data becomes the default language of truth.
Universities adopting these systems without critical examination risk teaching students that the logic of Big Tech is not merely useful but inevitable, she added.
Heinsfeld pointed to California State University as an example of that shift on full display.
The university signed a $16.9 million contract in February to roll out ChatGPT Edu across 23 campuses, providing more than 460,000 students and 63,000 faculty and staff with access to the tool through mid-2026.
It hosted an AWS-powered “AI camp” in the summer, where students arrived to find Amazon branding everywhere, including corporate slogans, AWS notebooks, and promotional swag.
The risks extend beyond institutional strategy
Another academic said the problem is already playing out in the day-to-day mechanics of learning.
Kimberley Hardcastle, a business and marketing professor at Northumbria University in the UK, told Business Insider that universities must overhaul how they design assessments now that students’ “epistemic mediators” — the tools that help them make sense of the world — have fundamentally changed.
Hardcastle advocates requiring students to demonstrate their reasoning: how they arrived at a conclusion, which sources they consulted beyond AI, and how they verified information against primary evidence, she said.
She said students also need deliberate “epistemic checkpoints,” moments designed into coursework where they must pause and ask: “Am I using this tool to enhance my thinking or replace it? Have I engaged with the underlying concepts or just the AI’s summary? Do I understand, or am I just recalling information?”
The real danger is ceding the authority to define truth
For Heinsfeld, the risk is that corporations will dictate what constitutes legitimate knowledge. For Hardcastle, it’s that students will no longer understand how to assess truth for themselves.
Both say universities must remain the space where students are taught to think, not just how to operate tools.
“Education should remain the space where we confront the architectures of our tools,” Heinsfeld wrote. Otherwise, “it risks becoming the laboratory of the very systems it should critique.”
Hardcastle made a similar point, adding that this future will be shaped not only by institutional decisions but by every moment a student accepts an AI-generated answer without knowing how to question it.
Read the full article here
