Whereas, there is a long history of workers and unions challenging the introduction of new technologies in order to maintain power in the workplace; and
Whereas, other unions have begun to address AI in their CBAs (e.g., SAG, AFTA, and WGA) and have had significant victories in this arena; and
Whereas, there are concerns that AI will replace roles at the University that will make it difficult or impossible to solve classroom, human resources, or other issues since it is not intelligent;
and
Whereas, the CSU has already begun to push AI as a tool through workshops, trainings, and institutional development; and
Whereas, AI, especially LLMs, and other algorithmic technologies are often referred to as “smart,” “AI powered,” “data driven” or other euphemistic terminology to conceal their implementation from users and enhance the perception of their value; and
Whereas, the CSU and individual campuses regularly sign contracts with tech companies, implement new learning technologies, and impose new technological “solutions,” including “smart,” “AI powered,” or “data driven” technologies, without consulting CFA; and
Whereas, AI will have a wide range of impacts that can’t be addressed by simply amending existing one CBA article including: AI’s propensity to exacerbate forms of institutional racism, sexism, and gender discrimination raises concerns around hiring and evaluation; AI’s threat to intellectual property including use of music, writing, and the creative arts as well as faculty generated course content without acknowledgement or permission; the potential for online instruction without direct faculty oversight or the massive expansion of classes through mandated AI use as a “speed-up”; and AI’s impact on development of new ideas, creativity, and academic freedom; and.
