AFT’s new AI Task Force takes critical approach to District technology

By Jessica Silver-Sharp

CSM Professor of History, Tatiana Irwin

For this article I sat down with Tatiana Irwin, CSM Professor of History, to ask some questions about her work on AFT’s new AI Task Force, formed in Fall 2025 to examine issues related to AI and faculty work. Excerpts from our in-depth discussion follow.

Faculty Concerns

JSS: With many other groups in our District looking at AI these days, what faculty concerns motivated the formation of AFT’s new AI Task Force?

TI: While conversations in the District are clearly happening around AI and pedagogy, with many workshops also focused on using certain AI products or tools for greater efficiency, there was no focused place for faculty to express concerns on how such tools were leading to automation of our professional work or deskilling of our profession. A lot of spaces that should have been checks on the adoption of AI seemed not to exist…Faculty never got to decide, weren’t really part of District conversations about whether or not we wanted to adopt AI products.

Additionally, when you look at the Twitter and X feeds of executives leading those companies whose products our district adopts, they are explicit that their purpose is to drive down labor costs by replacing workers with AI and they are actually contemptuous of higher education.

AI Surveillance

The other concern, where union and faculty concerns intersect, was about data governance and surveillance. As our contract with Instructure [the parent company of Canvas] makes clear, we don’t have good systems for data governance. While the CCC contracts with Instructure and community college districts have local control about whether we adopt/how we engage those tools, we tend to fall in line with whatever CCC has adopted. This also puts our students’ data at risk.

Additionally, Instructure was recently acquired by a private equity firm, KKR, and many of the products we promote across the district are from big tech and for-profit companies who market tools for education. An outside audit by ProCircular “Vendor Risk Opinion” following acquisition by KKR gave our Instructure contract a “medium” risk score, identifying several vulnerabilities. Significantly, these included “3.Type(s) of Data Handled Responses within the HECVAT indicate that Instructure would have access to certain staff and student PII,” and “8. Notes: Open investigation due to potential violation of fiduciary duties by the Instructure Board on July 25, 2024.” . . .

Canvas is turning into a marketplace for third party tools, and those tools do not come with the same intellectual property, usage data, and privacy protections as Canvas. My concerns are heightened by the current political climate, where the [Presidential] administration has tried to subpoena hospitals and other institutions for records on vulnerable populations. We don’t have as many protections under our contract with Instructure as we may assume, and even fewer across some third party tools.

As a society we are rapidly turning education into product training and reducing students to consumers for AI products. I fear that they won’t learn skills beyond prompt engineering and that in the end, their skillsets won’t keep pace with the desire for employers to replace or devalue their labor with AI. A study from MIT and a recent analysis by the Brookings Institute both suggest that using AI tools impede cognitive development and critical thinking. Some studies have gone further to suggest they may lead to an actual cognitive decline.

Most alarming, the same companies that are behind the AI products we’re using are those partnering with Palantir and Salesforce, which in turn support ICE operations. Rallies and organizations promoting immigrant rights have made that explicit in their training calls.

The Goal: Contract Language

JSS: That brings us to the work of the Task Force. What would you say has been its initial focus?

TI: In addition to having a place to discuss important questions – and I want to note that some members of the Task Force are certainly AI enthusiasts – one goal is to get language into our faculty contract that protects us from possible negative impacts of AI on our professional lives.

We also need to strategize how to work with the District to provide more transparency to faculty around the tech companies we’re contracting with. How much is the District spending on tech contracts? What protections do faculty have?

The AI Task Force has also divided up the work amongst members. We are examining CCC and District technology company contracts to look for threats to our intellectual property and data privacy. We are also looking at how certain tools may be collecting our usage data – this is key to understanding how our work is vulnerable to future deskilling and automation. It is also key to understanding how certain faculty, and students, could be targeted for surveillance…Taskforce participants have also reviewed guidance and strategies from other community college districts and their unions, and the UC Berkeley Labor Center. They have great guides for all workers on how to defend ourselves from AI threats.

Next, the Task Force plans to develop a survey to collect faculty feedback about AI. This group is really the only place where faculty are addressing AI through the lens of labor. If you are excited to adopt AI products into your work, you may still have concerns about workload and privacy. If you are resistant to AI, you are equally concerned about workload and privacy.

All Are Welcome

JSS: How can faculty learn more about the AI Task force – and join the work?

TI: We have been reporting back on our work at AFT’s monthly membership meetings and encourage faculty to attend or listen in. While we have a lot of instructional faculty in the group, we’re seeking a diversity of work experiences across our colleges. People in the Task Force range from AI enthusiasts to those who hate it or are skeptical; you can still be an enthusiast and want to make AI tools safer and more ethical.To that end, we need a larger spectrum – counselors, DRC specialists, instructional designers and librarians – to say ‘this is how my work has been impacted or is likely to be impacted by AI.’ Members are highly encouraged to get in touch and join the conversation. Anyone interested in participating can contact me at Irwint@smccd.edu.

JSS: Rank and file members like yourself are doing such important work for AFT not only on behalf of faculty but also considering our students. Thank you for taking the time to share.