Santiago Schnell, provost of Dartmouth College, resigned this week after reporting showed he was among guest columnists whose opinion pieces contained AI-generated text. The coverage traced Schnell’s work to a broader finding that AI-assisted material appeared in numerous high-profile guest columns.
An analysis that incorporated AI tools identified Schnell as one of 50 guest columnists whose pieces ran in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post during a one-month period and included text generated by AI. The analysis concluded that use of AI in writing has become widespread — even at outlets that prohibit such assistance.
Schnell has said the core intellectual work behind his columns remained his own: he told The Dartmouth that he develops ideas and arguments, conducts the research, evaluates evidence and sources, determines structure, prepares drafts and decides what appears in the final text. The Dartmouth student newspaper conducted its own review of a number of Schnell’s writings.
One central question is whether Schnell’s main failing was not the substance of his ideas but a lack of disclosure about using AI in publications that prohibit it. Reporting so far does not indicate that he merely pasted chatbot output as his own; Schnell maintains that the material reflected his research and thinking rather than being wholly produced by an AI.
Diverging views on the appropriate response
The case has split opinion. Some students and critics say Schnell’s resignation is appropriate because academic communities often forbid students from using AI in coursework and impose penalties when they are caught. From that perspective, a leader in an academic institution should be held to strict standards.
Others argue that forced resignations are an excessive response that risks setting an impractical precedent. They note that AI tools are now commonly used across professions and that absolute bans are increasingly difficult to enforce. Those voices suggest the focus should be on transparency and updated guidelines rather than automatic disciplinary measures.
Stronger accusations
Eli Moyse, a columnist for Dartmouth’s student newspaper, wrote in an op-ed that, if true, Schnell’s use of AI in academic publications could represent a graver violation. Moyse argued that Schnell repeatedly outsourced intellectual labor and presented work under his name that was not entirely his, a form of plagiarism that he described as among the most serious academic offenses.
A broader trend
The episode fits into a wider pattern: analyses have found that politicians and other public figures increasingly rely on AI to draft website biographies and policy statements. The prevalence of AI assistance across different kinds of public writing highlights a growing tension between common practice and existing rules.
Why this matters
The Schnell case raises several important questions about how to treat AI’s role in scholarly and public writing: how to ensure transparency and authorial responsibility; when nondisclosure constitutes a serious ethical breach; and what sanctions, if any, are appropriate. The debate underscores the need for clear, nuanced policies that require disclosure and set boundaries for AI assistance, rather than relying solely on punitive actions that some view as disproportionate.
