The California Community College system recently entered into partnerships with Google, Microsoft, and Instructure, the parent company of Canvas. These partnerships have led to a suite of artificial intelligence (AI) tools being directly integrated into the Canvas Learning Management System. While these tools have the potential to enhance teaching and learning, their implementation also raises important questions about faculty workload, intellectual property rights, data privacy, and academic freedom. It’s imperative that faculty are aware of these issues and actively engage in discussions about them, including at the bargaining table.

Academic senates must address aspects of these AI tools through 10+1, particularly as they relate to student success, retention, and professional development. At the same time, it is essential not to overlook that these tools carry significant implications for faculty working conditions.

Under the Educational Employment Relations Act, collective bargaining agents, including faculty unions, have the right to negotiate over changes to working conditions. This means unions should demand to bargain over the impacts of these AI tools. Once the union has issued the demand, Districts cannot implement these tools until negotiations are complete. The AI tools integrated into Canvas must be activated at the institutional level, and that activation must be postponed during negotiations. By pressing this legal “pause button,” unions can ensure that faculty rights are protected.

As AI tools enter our classrooms, it is essential to center faculty rights, professional autonomy, and academic integrity by safeguarding faculty privacy and data security, and by preventing unauthorized surveillance or access to information via AI systems. Vigilance is also necessary to avoid the use of AI tools to justify increases in class sizes or reductions in faculty support. 

The use of generative AI tools in faculty evaluations also raises significant concerns. Faculty unions should consider proposing a prohibition on AI-generated inputs in evaluation processes, particularly for summarizing student comments, given the well-documented inaccuracy of AI tools. Furthermore, faculty should not be assessed based on whether they choose to use AI in their work, nor should the use of specific AI platforms be required. All AI-related professional development should be faculty-led, pedagogically grounded, and vendor-neutral rather than oriented toward promoting particular corporate tools or products.

With the adoption of AI accelerating across our districts, now is the time for faculty members to take an active role in shaping their implementation to serve the interests of students and the profession. FACCC encourages all faculty members to engage in discussions within their local academic senates and collective bargaining units about the potential impacts of these tools and the protections needed. FACCC also urges faculty to support their union's efforts to demand bargaining over the effects of AI implementation. Faculty unions, in consultation with Academic Senates, have the power to address these issues at the bargaining table, and this power should not be underestimated. 

FACCC blog posts are written independently by FACCC members and encompass their experiences and recommendations. FACCC neither condemns nor endorses the recommendations herein.