Dartmouth Provost's AI-Generated Writings Spark Calls

Dartmouth Provost Santiago Schnell is under fire after multiple investigations found his professional writings, including a guest essay for The Washington Post, were predominantly or entirely generated by artificial intelligence. The controversy has ignited a fierce debate on campus about academic integrity and leadership accountability, leading to petitions for his dismissal and an independent review ordered by President Sian Beilock.

An investigation by Semafor used the AI detection tool Pangram to analyze Schnell's Washington Post column from August, labeling it as 100% AI-generated. The Dartmouth student newspaper conducted a broader analysis of Schnell's nine professional articles published this year, using the same tool. It found a median AI-written text percentage of 96%. Even Schnell's emailed statement to The Dartmouth responding to the allegations was found by the paper to be 100% AI-written.

Schnell’s defense and context

Schnell maintains that AI was used only as an assistive tool. He told Semafor he used ChatGPT to refine a few arguments and check for grammatical errors before submitting his Washington Post essay, which then went through multiple rounds of editing. He states the characterization of his work as '100% AI-written' is inaccurate and argues that AI detectors are biased against non-native English speakers. Schnell defends his use of AI as assistive tools that do not replace his intellectual judgment or authorship.

Campus and academic response

The revelations have provoked strong condemnation from within the Dartmouth community. A petition by Dartmouth’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors calls for Schnell’s firing to restore honor and integrity. Students and faculty argue his actions violate the college’s honor code, which requires students to acknowledge generative AI use in their coursework. Government major Eli Moyse wrote an editorial calling for Schnell's dismissal due to his 'AI dependency'.

"How do we ask our students and colleagues to follow the rules when the academic leader of Dartmouth is allowed to break them?" Moyse said.

In response, President Sian Beilock sent a campus-wide email announcing a rigorous, objective review. She stated that leading on AI is messy and will involve missteps as part of institutional learning. Beilock has convened an independent advisory committee of faculty and alumni to review Schnell’s AI use against publication criteria.

Broader implications for AI in academia

The case highlights a growing and largely unregulated use of AI among university administrators. A 2026 survey of chief academic officers found 71% use AI in their work at least weekly, and 65% use it to draft communications. The controversy forces a confrontation with fundamental questions about disclosure and authorship. The Washington Post's policy, for instance, requires guest writers to confirm submissions are not created or manipulated with AI.

Education technology consultant Tawnya Means notes the need for meaningful distinctions between AI assistance and substitution. She argues that 'AI was used' tells little about an author’s contribution and that disclosure obligations should not apply to every AI interaction any more than to using a dictionary. Others, like scholar Leidner, suggest that in cases like Schnell's, AI may be the author and the human the minion doing busy work, undermining the intellectual craft of shaping thoughts into words.

The situation is particularly charged at Dartmouth, which is celebrating its historic role in AI's origins while its president publicly advocates for more AI integration. Beilock announced an independent advisory committee of faculty and alumni will review Schnell’s AI use against publication criteria.