Positive and Negative Impacts of Emerging Technology: A Primer for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Early Adopters in Institutions of Higher Education
By Brandon C.S. Wallace, Professor | Consultant | Advocate | Activist, Montgomery College
Navigating the vast and still-evolving landscape of artificial intelligence (AI) integration in higher education has been met with a mix of anticipation, curiosity, and concern. Speaking candidly, I am an African American millennial male teaching at a U.S. institution of higher education. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), as of Fall 2022, only 7% of full-time faculty members were Black, 3% were male, and 4% were female. The American Council on Education (ACE) echoes these statistics, offering additional data that sheds light on the continued underrepresentation of Black males in academia (Kim et al., 2024; Scharmer, 2016). My personalized cultural underpinnings help foreshadow much of the thrust of my position and my willingness to explore the vast yet unknown landscape of integrating artificial intelligence within the realm of higher education.
If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.
As an early adopter of AI at my institution, I find myself in an interesting and often complex space. Earlier this year, I presented “Embracing Emerging Technologies in Community College Spaces: Artificial Intelligence Didactic and Showcase” at the 2025 AAC&U Annual Meeting in Washington, D.C. A few months later, I sat in a department meeting where many colleagues voiced astonishing concerns about the implications of AI in higher education. In academia, we are used to the open exchange of divergent perspectives within an environment that encourages respectful discourse. It is common and acceptable to disagree while still respecting or tolerating differing viewpoints. What stands out to me most is that I was excited to be in both rooms: one where my ideas were celebrated as innovative and forward-thinking, and another where they were regarded with skepticism or caution. Higher education often demands that we embrace both the bitter and the sweet, the praise and the pushback.
I have come to understand that institutional innovation, especially in universities founded prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is often hindered by structural marginalization, whether due to homophily, bias, prejudice, or outright racism. Institutions built without inclusivity in mind cannot easily retrofit themselves to uphold more equitable ideals, especially when those ideals challenge entrenched norms shaped by non-diverse leadership and traditions. As someone who has never belonged to the racial, age, or cultural majority at most institutions of higher education in the United States, I’ve learned to find comfort in standing apart. When one is no longer preoccupied with legitimizing their work through the lens of the majority, it creates space free from both praise and criticism to innovate, reflect, and refine one’s practice on their own terms. In short, I have grown increasingly comfortable with being apart from the majority, especially as I have never been a part of the majority, at least not in the sense of age, race, or other unique identifiers that make me who I am.
Let me be super clear: it is not easy to navigate the feeling of being othered (Morrison, 2017). However, when one shifts her or his mindset from victim to visionary, or outsider to originator, the metaphoric doors open to challenge outdated, antiquated mental models, allowing for the existence of an exciting reality, as opposed to a quotidian chore.
Mogavi et al. (2024) write, “Early adopters’ attitudes towards ChatGPT are multifaceted. Some users see it as a transformative tool that can increase students’ motivation to learn and their sense of self-efficacy. On the other hand, there is a degree of apprehension among concerned users. They worry about a potential overdependence on the AI system, which they fear might encourage superficial learning habits and erode students’ social and critical thinking skills” (p. 2). These concerns are becoming more prevalent among early adopters of AI in higher education teaching practices. Additionally, a recent news story highlights the tension of a student’s disdain with the use of AI: Northeastern University student Ella Stapleton requested a $8,000 refund after discovering that her professor had used ChatGPT-generated materials in class (Shibu, 2025). This incident underscores a growing expectation among students for more traditional, human-centered instruction. While resistance exists among both faculty and students, there is also a growing cohort of educators, administrators, and learners who appreciate AI’s potential and are committed to using it responsibly and ethically (Wallace & Abel, 2025).
In July, I traveled to Ghana to present at the International Education Summit 2025 in Accra. At the start of the conference, an African proverb was shared: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together.” That sentiment still resonates deeply. Yet, in many cases, early adopters must walk alone for a while until the broader academic community is ready to join. Education has weathered similar controversies before in curriculum, instruction, and assessment. Consider the calculator. Many forget how controversial it was upon its introduction to classrooms (Dick, 1988). Today, it’s nearly impossible to imagine mathematics education without it. The path forward with AI may follow a similar arc: resistance, debate, and, eventually, integration. As early adopters, we are not only testing new tools we are shaping the future of learning itself, and that is worth the duality that comes with any new and different approach to disrupting systems that may need just that to reinvigorate a space in our society that, particularly now, needs new approaches to ensure educators stay on the cusp of a brave new world of educational pursuits.
References:
– Dick, T. (1988). The continuing calculator controversy. The Arithmetic Teacher, 35(8), 37-41.
– Kim, Ji Hye “Jane,” Maria Claudia Soler, Zhe Zhao, and Erica Swirsky. 2024. Race and Ethnicity in Higher Education: 2024 Status Report. Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
– National Center for Education Statistics. (2024). Characteristics of Postsecondary Faculty. Condition of Education. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved [July 23, 2025], from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/csc.
– Scharmer, C. O. (2016). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
– Mogavi, R. H., Deng, C., Kim, J. J., Zhou, P., Kwon, Y. D., Metwally, A. H. S., … & Hui, P. (2024). ChatGPT in education: A blessing or a curse? A qualitative study exploring early adopters’ utilization and perceptions. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 2(1), 100027.
– Shibu, S. (2025, May 14). College professors are turning to ChatGPT to generate course materials. One student noticed — and asked for a refund. Entrepreneur. https://www.entrepreneur.com/business-news/student-asks-for-money-back-after-professor-uses-chatgpt/491640.
– Wallace, B. C., & Abel, Y. (2025). Embracing Artificial Intelligence (AI) Tools to Enrich Special Education Teacher Preparation. In Transforming Special Education Through Artificial Intelligence (pp. 325-354). IGI Global.