How colleges, art & trade schools, and creative writing / copy-writing / script-writing programs are responding to the rise of AI tools — both the challenges and the new practices. Included is a number of specific schools and examples.
How Schools Are Dealing with AI in Writing / Creative / Script / Copy Programs
Broadly, institutions are taking one or more of these approaches:
- Prohibitions / “Old-fashioned” Authorship
Some courses ban AI-generated content entirely for certain assignments, especially creative writing, script writing, etc. They require that the student’s own writing be submitted, often disclaiming use of AI or treating undisclosed AI use as academic misconduct. - Guidelines with Controlled / Ethical Use
Many schools allow limited AI use (brainstorming, drafting, editing) under certain conditions: citing the AI, verifying facts, clarifying what is the student’s own work vs AI-assisted. The idea is to teach responsible use of tools rather than ignore them. - Integration of AI as Part of the Curriculum
A few courses explicitly explore using AI as part of creative practice — thinking about how AI influences storytelling, voice, creativity. Some classes let students “incorporate or resist” AI, or teach students to use AI-suggestion tools critically. - Assessment Redesign
Shifting to more in-class, supervised writing, oral exams, process-based work, drafts, peer review, etc., in order to ensure authenticity of writing. Also, syllabus statements about AI policies, having baseline writing samples from students to compare, etc. - Institution-level Policies and Ethical Frameworks
Schools are developing institutional policies to define what is acceptable, what must be disclosed, what is prohibited. Some art/design colleges emphasize that AI can be used in conceptual process but not in final deliverables, etc.
Specific Examples
Here are some concrete cases of schools and programs, and how they’re handling this issue:
| School / Program | What They’re Doing | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Rice University | Integration + Critical Use | They have a course called ENGL 306: AI Fictions (fall 2025) that invites writers to both incorporate and resist AI influence. It’s structured so students think critically about how AI fits into creative fiction. (Rice Thresher) |
| UT Tyler (University of Texas at Tyler) | Prohibition of AI-generated work in certain creative writing class | In their “Studies in Creative Writing” class (English 5367): students are prohibited from using AI as a substitute for authorship on writing assignments. Work generated by AI will not be accepted. Submissions will be checked for AI-generated content and considered plagiarism if they use AI. (UT Tyler) |
| Ringling College of Art + Design | Guidelines for responsible AI use in writing for digital media | Their CRWR 110 Writing for Digital Media course encourages use of AI tools (ChatGPT, Claude) for drafting, idea generation, refining, but with rules: must cite AI tools if using factual claims or substantial content; work must be edited/personalized; full AI-generated writing without personal input is not permitted. (ringling.libguides.com) |
| University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) | Integration + transparency + critical use | Their UCSB Writing Program has a policy recognizing that LLMs are already widely used. They encourage mediated, critically-aware, and transparent use of AI writing tech; use it as part of feedback tools among other supports (peer review, instructor feedback) rather than allowing unchecked use. (writing.ucsb.edu) |
| Brandon University (Canada) | Limited use; emphasis on student’s own work | The Department of English, Drama & Creative Writing adopted a policy (July 2024) that allows proofreading/grammar tools, but emphasizes that students must make the corrections themselves and that AI shortcuts are not a substitute for foundational learning. (brandonu.ca) |
| College for Creative Studies (CCS), Detroit | Institution-wide policy, especially art/design, careful limits | They have an institutional AI policy. Students may use AI tools for process/research, but cannot incorporate AI-generated final images or outputs unless specifically approved. Also, students must disclose prompts, document process. (College for Creative Studies) |
| Foothill & DeAnza Colleges | Multiple levels / tiered policies | They are creating guidelines for “Appropriate AI Use in Classes” with different possible levels: no AI allowed; limited with attribution; full integration in some cases. It’s still under discussion, with individual instructors also setting course-by-course rules. (Foothill College | Home) |
| University of South Carolina (Graduate Research/Writing) | Guidelines for responsible use in research/writing | Their “Guidelines for the Responsible Use of AI in Graduate Research and Writing” allow AI for idea generation, grammar/style, etc., but warn against using AI to generate substantive content unless explicitly permitted. Emphasize verification. (University of South Carolina) |
Challenges & Tensions
From what I saw, there are several tensions schools are trying to address, often without a perfect solution yet:
- Defining what “AI use” means: What counts as acceptable vs unacceptable (brainstorming vs actual writing). What percentage or kind of AI use: is a prompt allowed? Is editing AI output ok? etc.
- Detection and enforcement: Tools that claim to detect AI text are imperfect; false positives/negatives are a concern. Schools often pair detection with baseline work (samples, drafts) so they can see a student’s writing style.
- Equity / access issues: Not all students may have equal access to AI tools; some may be unfairly disadvantaged if AI is banned or restricted. Also, privacy / copyright / intellectual property of AI tools or data it was trained on come up in policies. e.g. CCS policy about how AI tools draw from artists’ work. (College for Creative Studies)
- Pedagogical integrity: Ensuring students still practice core skills (voice, originality, critical thinking, craft) rather than relying on AI to do those. Many schools explicitly affirm foundational skills continue to be taught “old-fashioned” ways (e.g. writing by hand, in class work, etc.)
- Keeping up with pace of AI change: Policies need to evolve rapidly; what is state-of-the-art now may be different in a year.
Conclusions / Trends
- There is no uniform approach; different programs and instructors are all over the map, from bans to permissive, to in-between hybrid models.
- Increasingly, schools recognize that banning AI outright is often unrealistic, especially with tools becoming ubiquitous. So many are choosing to incorporate AI, but with guidelines, ethical disclosures, transparency, and critical engagement.
- Creative writing/script-writing/copy-writing programs seem especially cautious where “voice” and originality are central; many want students to produce original work (own ideas and style) even if drafting or brainstorming involves AI.
- In design/art schools, similarly, there is a distinction between using AI as reference/inspiration vs final deliverable.
