This article examines the expansion of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) into higher education. We argue that genAI’s incursion into university systems represents an effort by Silicon Valley to capture lucrative new markets for their products, as well as enhanced credibility by association. Drawing on our experience as faculty in the California State University (CSU) system—the first university system to contract with OpenAI to provide ChatGPT Edu system-wide—we assess the rhetoric that justifies and legitimizes genAI contracts in higher education. We suggest that the uncritical adoption of genAI in higher education poses problems for labor conditions, the integrity of intellectual property, and student learning on campuses, particularly under the conditions of austerity that are commonly found in public universities.

In this article, we provide a situated reflection on the institutional adoption of generative AI products by universities from a critical STS perspective. From classic work on the social construction of technology to recent scholarship on digital platforms as infrastructure (see, e.g., Edwards et al., 2024), STS has long been concerned with the politics of technology and sociotechnical systems. In “A Sociology of Artificial Intelligence: Inequalities, Power, and Data Justice,” sociologists Kelly Joyce and Taylor M. Cruz suggest analyzing genAI with an STS lens by asking: “What values are embedded in the design of a particular AI platform? Whose interests are served by its use? Who is empowered by its use? Who is negatively affected by its use?” (2024).
In this article we apply these questions to ChatGPT Edu, placing it within ist wider social, political, and economic milieu. We argue that university/AI contracts enrich Silicon Valley and their powerful “tech oligarchy” (Cohen, 2025), while simultaneously threatening higher education—particularly under the conditions of austerity that are common in public universities. Drawing on recent popular and academic literature on genAI, we argue that the values embedded in this technology do not align with the values of critical humanities and social science pedagogy, which include originality, academic freedom, creativity, and critical thinking. And while university brands may benefit from proximity to these charismatic technologies, university/AI contracts put the core mission of higher education in jeopardy. Overall, we caution against the uncritical adoption of ChatGPT Edu and call on university administrators to invest in products and services that are proven to support student success.