Summary
Leaders of the California State University system have renewed a contract with OpenAI to expand access to a university-focused version of ChatGPT, even as many students and employees say they are uncertain AI will improve learning. The CSU leadership position is that using generative AI responsibly is increasingly part of education and career readiness, and that university classrooms should not ignore tools students already encounter.
The renewal follows the system’s initial entry into the partnership last year, when CSU officials described the effort as unprecedented in scale. During a February 2025 press conference announcing the partnership, CSU chancellor Mildred García said, “No other university system in the U.S. or internationally is doing anything like this, not at this scale.” The system has said it intends for ChatGPT Edu to supplement learning rather than replace it.
CSU’s chief information officer Ed Clark told NPR in an email that the contract renewal reflects a broader effort to bring AI tools to the CSU community. Clark said the system chose OpenAI because they offered “the most cost-effective option that could make it even possible to bring AI tools to more than a half a million students, faculty and staff.” Clark also said a planning document showed CSU approached selecting the vendor in support of “innovation, accessibility and academic excellence.”
OpenAI’s education vice president Leah Belsky told NPR that the companies share responsibility for how students use the tools, saying, “As they prepare for the workforce, AI literacy is becoming part of career readiness… so the CSU’s role is to help students understand how AI is changing their disciplines and how to use it ethically and responsibly,” and Belsky added that OpenAI “share[s] a responsibility to help students use these tools well… to harness their full potential and succeed in the AI-driven future of work.” Clark said CSU’s generative AI advisory committee—made up of students, faculty and staff—“unanimously recommended renewing the contract.”
The renewal comes despite a CSU survey showing widespread ambivalence among students, faculty and staff. NPR reported that last fall CSU invited respondents from all 22 campuses to answer questions about their views on AI, and more than 94,000 people responded. The survey results showed widespread use of generative AI tools but also significant skepticism about whether the technology helps education overall, and respondents raised concerns spanning creativity, jobs and the environment.
NPR reported topline survey findings that included that about 65% of students and 59% of faculty said they were skeptical AI was benefiting education overall. The survey also found that 80% of students said they would not be comfortable turning in AI-generated work as their own, while about 64% of students said AI had “positively affected” their learning and about 35% said it had “negatively affected” their learning. The survey further indicated that large majorities of students and faculty worried about AI’s impact on creativity (83% of students, 82% of faculty), job security (82% of students, 78% of faculty) and the environment (80% of students, 84% of faculty).
Clark and CSU officials pointed to internal support for AI adoption, while critics questioned the educational and ethical tradeoffs involved. Martha Kenney, a professor and science and technology scholar at San Francisco State University, part of CSU, said some faculty and students reject the idea that AI in higher education is inevitable. Kenney said refusing to use the technology “needs to be a position that’s on the table,” and argued that it could be justified by concerns including generative AI’s environmental impact and the use of copyrighted work to train models. Kenney also questioned the educational value, saying offering a chatbot that allows students to take shortcuts on assignments is “cheating our students out of an education,” and she co-authored a petition calling on the CSU not to renew its contract.
CSU has said its own data do not match the view that the community is broadly against the partnership. Clark said the online petition “does not reflect overall sentiment from within our community,” adding that the CSU survey shows majorities of students and faculty say AI has had a positive impact on their learning and work. Clark also said CSU chose to renew after its advisory committee review, and that the technology should be used to support students’ AI literacy.
In interviews included in the report, students described using ChatGPT Edu while still expressing reservations. Sejal Daterao, a 30-year-old student in CSU Long Beach’s information systems master’s program, said she uses ChatGPT Edu and other AI tools for tasks such as research, summarizing text and video lectures, and creating quizzes. Daterao said she was grateful the CSU provides access to ChatGPT Edu, which she said includes features not available on the free version, but she also described frustration with false information from AI chatbots and with the way tech companies use creative work to train models without credit or compensation to artists. She said, “It has a lot of bad sides, and a lot of good sides,” and that “If you are smart, if you are being ethical, you can use the good sides in a really amazing way.”
Another student, who asked NPR to use only the first initial “H” because they are actively applying for tech jobs, said AI had irritated them when they saw classmates using it to write assignments and they initially avoided using it entirely. H said they later began using AI chatbots for “menial tasks” such as writing emails and to help with coding assignments, but they concluded it could become “a crutch instead of actually helping,” and said “one of the telltale signs that I should stop using it” was that experience. H said learning more about the environmental impacts of data centers increased their resistance, and H said they were “a little disappointed that they accepted it with open arms immediately,” adding concerns that pushing AI use could prevent students from learning foundational skills.
Educators interviewed by NPR said many instructors see the technology as unavoidable but disagree on how coursework should adapt. Zach Justus, a communications professor and director of faculty development at CSU Chico, said faculty cannot ignore the technology and should experiment with it to understand what it can and cannot do. Justus said, “The most important thing that we tell faculty is that they cannot ignore the technology,” adding, “If we ignore it, we are not doing our jobs.” He also said the partnership raises questions, including whether the CSU should spend millions on an AI chatbot while facing budget cuts, and he criticized a scenario in which only some students could afford premium AI tools.
Jennifer Trainor, an English professor at San Francisco State University, said she tries to teach students about AI and the ethical questions it raises while requiring students to protect parts of the learning process from AI shortcuts. Trainor said she safeguards the learning process by requiring students to brainstorm and draft by hand during class time and said she allows students to use AI to edit writing while requiring them to reflect critically on changes. Trainor said, “I am really trying to get them to do their own writing and thinking,” and described “a groundswelling of resistance” on the campus from students who she said are ethically opposed to environmental impacts and what she described as bias and the erasure of jobs and voices.
The NPR report said Goldberg, an associate professor at San Diego State University who worked on the survey, said the findings reflect the views of those who responded, and that CSU does not know the opinions of people who did not answer. Goldberg told NPR the results still offer “a pretty good representation across different fields of study and across different demographics,” and he described the survey as showing “tremendous amount of nuance in opinion” even among people who use generative AI tools frequently.
This reporting was supported by a grant from the Tarbell Center for AI Journalism and the Omidyar Network’s Reporters in Residence program. Edited by Nicole Cohen.