Staff Reports
Grambling State University theatre professor Neal Hebert told the New Yorker he will fail any student he catches using ChatGPT — even potentially failing a student for the entire course after an appeals process. That sharp line — blunt, theatrical, and built for headlines — has schools, parents, and students all asking the same thing: who gets to decide academic truth in the age of generative AI? The New Yorker roundup that published Hebert’s comments has kicked off a wider conversation about cheating, classroom control, and campus AI policy.
What Professor Hebert actually said
Hebert, listed on Grambling State University’s faculty pages as a theatre professor, told the magazine that “ChatGPT is disallowed from their writing process” and that he can “immediately tell when ChatGPT has been used.” He didn’t mince words: “I will fail the student on this assignment if it is used — and, potentially, for the entire course, if we go through a formal appeals process.” Hebert’s colorful warning — including his line, “I get paid the same whether I pass you or fail you” — is an expression of frustration that many educators feel about students outsourcing thinking to an app.
University policy and the question of due process
Grambling State already has an institutional Artificial Intelligence policy that defines AI misuse and sets out enforcement steps. That matters, because individual professors can’t be rogue judges and executioners of academic careers. If a student faces a failing grade or a course failure, there should be documented evidence, fair investigation, and consistent application of Policy #20105. Detection is messy: AI “fingerprints” are not foolproof, and false positives can ruin futures. A hard stance on cheating is fine — but it must be backed by transparent procedures and safeguards for students.
Why conservatives should care about this fight over AI and integrity
Conservatives who care about personal responsibility and standards should applaud professors who refuse to tolerate blatant cheating. But we should also resist the temptation to cheer on summary punishments that lack clear proof. The left’s embrace of tech as a shortcut to outcomes can corrode standards faster than anyone admits. The right answer is both: defend rigorous education and insist on due process when accusations of AI misuse arise.
Fixing the problem without turning classrooms into courtrooms
Practical steps are easy enough. First, universities must publish how they detect AI use and how appeals work. Second, professors should redesign assessments so AI can’t easily substitute for original work — oral defenses, in-class writing, and unique local prompts work. Third, schools must educate students about acceptable AI use rather than just threatening them with failure. Hebert’s anguish is real, and his call for artistic seriousness is touching in a drama-school way. But theater professors and university administrators need rules that protect both academic standards and students’ rights — not just dramatic pronouncements fit for a curtain call.
