CSU Embraces AI, But Students and Faculty Remain Skeptical

The California State University system — the largest public four-year university system in the United States, serving approximately 470,000 students across 23 campuses — has embarked on an ambitious, first-of-its-kind initiative to become the nation’s first “AI-powered university system.” But a systemwide survey of over 94,000 respondents reveals a striking paradox: even as majorities of students and faculty report using artificial intelligence tools regularly, roughly 65% of students and 59% of faculty expressed skepticism that AI is benefiting education overall.

The Largest AI Deal in Higher Education

In February 2025, CSU entered into a $17 million no-bid contract with OpenAI to provide ChatGPT Edu to all students, faculty, and staff — the largest single deployment of ChatGPT anywhere in the world, according to NPR. The system recently renewed that contract for $13 million per year for three additional years, bringing the total commitment to approximately $56 million over the partnership’s lifetime.

“No other university system in the U.S. or internationally is doing anything like this, not at this scale,” Chancellor Mildred García said during a February 2025 press conference announcing the partnership, as OpenAI reported.

Beyond OpenAI, CSU partnered with Adobe, Alphabet, Google, AWS, IBM, Instructure, Intel, LinkedIn, Microsoft, and NVIDIA as part of its broader “AI-Empowered CSU” initiative. An AI Workforce Acceleration Board was also created, including representatives from the California Governor’s office and major tech companies.

The Survey Paradox

Last fall, San Diego State University conducted a systemwide AI survey on behalf of CSU. With over 94,000 responses, it is the largest higher education AI dataset in the nation, according to the CSU AI Survey Report. The findings paint a complex picture:

More than half of students and roughly 60% of faculty and staff use AI regularly
About 64% of students say AI has positively affected their learning
Yet roughly 65% of students and 59% of faculty are skeptical AI is benefiting education overall
80% of students said they would not be comfortable submitting AI-generated work as their own
Large majorities worry about AI’s impact on creativity (83% of students, 82% of faculty), job security (82% of students, 78% of faculty), and the environment (80% of students, 84% of faculty)
83.5% of students worry about AI’s impact on personal data

David Goldberg, an associate professor at San Diego State University and one of the survey authors, told NPR that the responses represent “a pretty good representation across different fields of study and across different demographics.” He noted the survey illustrates genuine ambivalence: “Even within one student, you can be using the tool a lot, see real advantages, and at the same time see these negatives.”

Notably, the survey did not ask whether respondents agreed with the system’s decision to spend millions on the OpenAI contract.

Budget Tensions Fuel Faculty Pushback

The most potent criticism of the AI deal centers on timing and priorities. When the contract was announced, the CSU system was facing a potential $375 million state budget cut. Though the system was partially spared in the final budget, individual campuses have been hit hard. San Francisco State University eliminated 615 lecturer positions over two years and offered buyouts to all tenured and tenure-track faculty. The system faces a $2.3 billion budget gap overall.

Faculty members Martha Kenney and Martha Lincoln at San Francisco State launched a petition titled “Cancel ChatGPT Edu. Invest in Humans.” calling on Chancellor García not to renew the OpenAI contract and instead use the savings to protect jobs.

“In the middle of the budget crisis, it’s best to invest in the humans that make the CSU system great, rather than buy in to Silicon Valley’s hype,” Kenney told Inside Higher Ed.

Ed Clark, CSU’s chief information officer, countered that the petition “does not reflect overall sentiment from within our community.” He noted that the system’s Generative AI Advisory Committee, composed of students, faculty, and staff, “unanimously recommended renewing the contract.”

Students Caught in the Middle

Students themselves express deeply divided feelings. Sejal Daterao, a graduate student at CSU Long Beach, told NPR she uses ChatGPT Edu for research and summarizing lectures and is grateful for the access. “Helping students use such technologies firsthand is really a good thing, honestly,” she said. “It has a lot of bad sides, and a lot of good sides. If you are smart, if you are being ethical, you can use the good sides in a really amazing way.”

But another student, a computer science major at San José State who asked to be identified only as “H” out of concern for her job prospects, expressed disappointment that the administration “accepted it with open arms immediately.” She worries that relying on AI for coding assignments prevented her from learning foundational skills: “Trying to use it to learn basics kind of led to just not learning basics, but using it to avoid putting in effort.”

The Cal State Student Association (CSSA) published a white paper in February 2026 raising concerns about equity, academic integrity inconsistency, privacy, sustainability, mental health, and the lack of student inclusion in decision-making. Katie Karroum, CSSA’s vice president of systemwide affairs, wrote that the initiative “has the potential to meaningfully transform higher education, but only if it is implemented with transparency, ethical accountability, environmental responsibility, and sustained student partnership.”

A National Precedent

CSU’s decision is being watched nationally as either a model or a cautionary tale. Universities nationwide — from Arizona State to Dartmouth to the University of Minnesota — have inked similar deals with AI companies. OpenAI has sold more than 700,000 ChatGPT licenses to roughly 35 public universities, according to Bloomberg.

But CSU’s scale and the simultaneous budget pressures make its case unique. At Arizona State, which was the first university to partner with OpenAI in 2024, faculty have not mounted significant opposition — partly because ASU hasn’t simultaneously cut faculty positions.

Zach Justus, a communications professor and director of faculty development at CSU Chico, summed up the challenge facing educators: “The most important thing that we tell faculty is that they cannot ignore the technology. If we ignore it, we are not doing our jobs.”

What’s Next

With the original OpenAI contract now renewed at $13 million per year, the debate is far from settled. Key questions remain: Will the CSU issue systemwide guidelines on AI use in classrooms, or will the current fragmented approach persist? Will the full survey data release offer additional insights? And as California’s budget situation evolves, will AI funding remain a priority over faculty hiring and program preservation?

For now, the CSU system offers an early, high-stakes look at what happens when a massive public institution commits to a technology that even its own community isn’t sure will improve education.