In August, an investigation revealed the hidden presence of artificial intelligence in guest columns published across prominent American newspapers, including pieces written by Dartmouth Provost Santiago Schnell. This week, Schnell resigned from his post. Yet the outcome of that investigation points to a broader overreaction that misunderstands how deeply writing technology has shifted.
Schnell was one of roughly 50 authors whose guest columns over a one-month span contained AI-generated text across major publications such as , The Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post. An analysis utilizing AI assistance revealed that such technology has integrated itself deeply into modern writing routines, appearing even in venues that maintain strict prohibitions against its use.
When the initial reporting was published, the objective was to provoke critical discussions rather than spark a punitive witch hunt resulting in high-profile departures. The central questions raised by the findings remain vital: Does it make practical sense to enforce blanket bans on a tool that has become ubiquitous and routinely slips past some of the world’s most renowned editors? And will attempting to prohibit these tools even remain technologically feasible in the future?
If Schnell committed an infraction, it lay in his failure to disclose that he utilized AI assistance while drafting columns and academic journal articles for outlets that ban its use. Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that Schnell’s writing originated from his own foundational concepts and labor. He did not simply feed a prompt into a chatbot and present the resulting output as his original creation.
In an interview with the student newspaper, The Dartmouth—which conducted its own independent probe into additional works by the administrator—Schnell defended his writing process. “I develop ideas and arguments, conduct the research, evaluate the evidence and sources, determine the structure, prepare drafts and decide what appears in the final text,” he stated.
The anger expressed by students is understandable, particularly given that students routinely face strict prohibitions and disciplinary penalties for utilizing AI in coursework. Yet demanding forced resignations merely reinforces an unproductive battle against a technological tide that has already become standard practice. Looking back years from now, institutions may well regret directing such intense moral outrage at individuals employing a new and demonstrably useful tool.
That perspective has faced sharp pushback on campus. In an op-ed for the student newspaper, columnist Eli Moyse argued that an academic leader’s reliance on AI represents a severe breach of trust. “If true, Provost Schnell’s use of AI in academic publications is arguably a graver violation,” Moyse wrote, contending that outsourcing intellectual labor and publishing it under one’s own name constitutes clear plagiarism, described as perhaps the most serious academic offense a faculty member can commit.
The debate extends far beyond university leadership. Separate analyses have shown that politicians frequently rely on artificial intelligence to draft website biographies and outline policy positions, demonstrating that the adaptation of writing technology spans multiple sectors of public life.
