The Unwelcome Guest: Why Creative Writing Belongs Elsewhere
The Academic Discipline of Creative Writing
Maybe the professionalization of creative writing as an academic discipline was always a bad idea. Do we belong in English departments? When I was a graduate student, the director of rhetoric and composition delighted in the university’s three-year M.F.A. program. Fledgling teachers in front of first-year writers was a winning combination of us winging it by throwing creativity at the wall and students appreciating our authentic advice that writing isn’t really something you learn or teach—it’s something you practice.
The Rise of Generative AI
Until writing studies adopted generative artificial intelligence as sound pedagogy, I always felt at home among my fellow word nerds in rhet comp and literary studies. These days, I identify with the buzzkill parents of Ray Bradbury’s short story "The Veldt." Are my students, Peter and Wendy, furrowing their brows with disapproval at my old-school AI skepticism? Will they gleefully throw me to the virtual reality lions?
The Case Against AI in Writing Studies
Such musings tempt me to join the Gen X teaching exodus. Get out of the new road if you can’t lend your hand; isn’t that what our boomer parents sang? Perhaps creative writers are in the academy at precisely this moment for more subversive reasons than boosting enrollments for English departments. Maybe our departments can learn to welcome a more robust skepticism of the ill-fitting marriage of AI to writing studies.
The Ethics of AI in Writing Studies
If you are tired of the drumbeat of inevitability that insists English faculty adopt AI into our teaching practices, I am here to tell you that you are allowed to object. Using an understanding of human writing as a means to allow for-profit technology companies to dismantle the imaginative practice of human writing is abhorrent and unethical. Writing faculty have both the agency and the academic freedom to examine generative AI’s dishonest training origins and conclude: There is no path to ethically teach AI skills. Not only are we allowed to say no, we ought to think deeply about the why of that no.
The Resistance
Feeling a little sweaty about the huge energy suckage AI draws from the grid and the monopolistic maneuvers of a handful of software companies? We are allowed to object based on the values of environmental stewardship, condemnation of rogue capitalism and disdain for the mustache-twirling villainy of big tech’s global politics.
Conclusion
Resistance is not anti-progress, and pedagogies that challenge the status quo are often the most experiential, progressive, and diverse in a world of increasingly rote, Standard English, oat milk sameness. "Burn it down" is a call to action as much as it is a plea to have some fun. The robot revolution came so quickly on the heels of the pandemic that I think a lot of us forgot that teaching can be a profoundly joyful act.
FAQs
Q: Why are you against AI in writing studies?
A: I believe that AI is being used to dismantle the imaginative practice of human writing and that it is not ethical to teach AI skills.
Q: What is the alternative to AI in writing studies?
A: I propose that we focus on teaching students how to write creatively and critically, using human feedback and guidance.
Q: Are you against technology in general?
A: No, I am not against technology. I believe that technology can be a powerful tool for learning and creativity, but it should be used responsibly and ethically.
Q: What is the role of the humanities in this debate?
A: The humanities have a crucial role to play in this debate. We must challenge the dominant narratives and power structures that are driving the adoption of AI in writing studies, and we must advocate for a more human-centered approach to education.
Q: What can students do to resist AI in writing studies?
A: Students can resist AI in writing studies by refusing to use AI-generated content, by demanding human feedback and guidance, and by advocating for a more human-centered approach to education.
