.jpg)
Professor Robin Burke has been appointed as the first Director of UCD's new AI Institute while students speak out against the implementation of AI into the classroom which is making some “actively disengage”.
On August 6th, it was announced by UCD that Professor Robin Burke had been appointed as Director of its new UCD AI Institute that will open in October. He will become a Full Professor in UCD’s School of Computer Science, the school which is Ireland's leading institution of AI and computational sciences. In an announcement Nova UCD stated that “the establishment of the UCD AI Institute is a cornerstone of Breaking Boundaries, UCD’s Strategy to 2030, reflecting the university’s ambition to strengthen its leadership in AI”.
In response to this news, students have spoken to The University Observer with their concerns and confusion relating to what they believe to be a lack of cohesion and “mixed messages” in terms of UCD’s approach to AI. The University Observer has been provided with specific examples from the past year of schools within UCD attempting to navigate the use of AI from both staff and students. As UCD continues to adapt to AI within higher education and broader society, some students claim that the implementation of AI is making them “actively disengage”.
This concern was similarly palpable in the most recent President’s Report. Published in September 2025, it stated that UCD’s risk management system identified AI as a principal risk and uncertainty that UCD faced, including “the risk that failure to effectively manage the uncertainties associated with Artificial Intelligence could lead to reputational damage and adverse impacts on academic standards,” in addition to the “risk that academic quality and reputation could lessen (including the potential impact of AI)”.
Following this 2025 report citing AI as a principal risk to academic quality and reputation and Professor Burke’s appointment in August, 2026, a sponsored article by UCD’s Smurfit Business School appeared in The Irish Times which promoted the new implementation of AI into “all of its programmes and modules”.
The new AI institute will be UCD’s most recent addition to AI education after Smurfit Business School developed an AI prompting centre for students in 2025 which Professor Federica Pazzaglia, Full Professor of Business at UCD, says in the same article is “demystifying AI” to students.
UCD’s AI Governance Principles state that “the University is committed to responsible and ethical AI governance.” It also states that they ensure to “safeguard academic integrity, promote equitable learning access, maintain high ethical research standards, and provide transparency in administrative processes”.
The Principles continue: “Fairness is critical in the deployment of AI to support University processes, including decision making, such as admissions, grading and research funding decisions.” They discuss the importance of transparency and accountability with regard to AI. It notes that “explainability” is “crucial in teaching and research environments” for all parties to “understand and trust the use of AI”. Directly referencing students, the Governance Principles state that “AI-driven grading, admissions processes and learning support systems are explainable and auditable”.
The Principles state: “The University will educate students, staff, alumni and the wider higher education community about AI’s capabilities, limitations, and its ethical implications”. AI literacy is said to be central to this, along with “training that accounts for the technical knowledge, experience, and specific contexts in which AI systems are employed”.
The Principles affirm that ahead of “deploying AI solutions, tools and systems, the University will evaluate risks related to bias, data misuse, and safety,” which is important in “high-impact applications affecting students and institutional reporting and decision-making”. It continues: “Where risks to fairness, equity, or accountability are deemed unacceptably high, the University will choose not to implement AI solutions...prioritising ethical integrity”.
In another set of guidelines that are “underpinned by the UCD AI Governance Principles,” UCD outlines that: “Faculty may incorporate AI tools into their teaching, learning, assessment or support activities.” They have “academic freedom to decide if and how AI is used in their modules within disciplinary norms, and must be transparent about its use at all times”.
A final year Politics student at UCD told The University Observer of their experience with having to use AI for an essay plan which was worth 10% of their final grade. The student claimed a fellow student raised concern about using AI and asked a member of staff how they could participate in the module if they disagreed with AI to which the staff member said “tough, it’s mandatory”. Another student that raised concerns to The University Observer about having to use AI in a module to complete an essay plan said that “The use of AI in making an essay plan completely defeats the purpose of making the essay plan in the first place, which should be your own thoughts”.
Masters student, Beth Clifford, told The University Observer of a situation involving a friend who suspected the feedback they received on two separate assignments in one module were both written by AI. “Despite the module not permitting the use of AI in producing the assignment, my friend and I found it very ironic they would seemingly use AI to respond to an assignment,” Clifford said. Screenshots of the feedback were provided to The University Observer.
They stated their annoyance as they believed “AI was probably used to create this feedback when they’ve paid significant amounts of money for quality lecturers and insight but then receive generated words instead”.
UCD philosophy student, Hazen E. Griffin, told The University Observer of a similar situation. He claims he suspected a lecturer of using “ChatGPT to put together a number of worksheets and discussion points for the class,” and pointed out that “ironically all of the assessments were done by pen and paper to ensure that we weren't cheating”.
Furthermore, UCD’s guidelines state that “A clear statement on the use of AI within a module must be included within the module descriptor” which should confirm whether use of AI by students is permitted, “while being mindful that outright bans on AI use in autonomous learning may not be practically enforceable.” It states that faculty may or may not choose to incorporate AI tools into their teaching, learning, assessment or support activities. In bold, it confirms that “faculty should be cautious about issuing blanket and unenforceable bans against the use of AI by students as part of their autonomous learning”.
Students in one history module in January 2026 received an email, which was seen by The University Observer, explaining that as “the use of AI is forbidden all those who have been found to have used AI will receive a Fail grade.” Students were given the opportunity to remediate their Fail grade and pass with a low grade, “subject to completing a remedial exercise,” provided that they explained “briefly (in two or three sentences)” why they used AI.
“Module Coordinators will need to decide whether students are permitted to use AI tools in an assessment task, depending on whether the use of that tool defeats or advances the purpose (learning goals) of that assessment,” the AI Governance Principles document claims. One recent graduate told The University Observer that “it is mad that UCD’s specific modules have different stances on AI usage, never mind the schools in UCD as a whole.”
With the recent establishment of an institute devoted to AI use and expansion, it remains to be seen how schools within UCD will attempt to navigate the use of AI from both staff and students as a new academic year begins this week.
On the wider issue of AI use, and the appointment of a Director of AI, UCD and UCDSU have been contacted for comment.