Key Takeaways
- Jonah Goldberg’s column warns that reliance on AI in classrooms risks turning the technology into a crutch that undermines learning.
- High‑school student Aryana Ramirez argues AI, when used responsibly, offers instant feedback and personalized instruction that traditional tools cannot match.
- Veteran educator Geoff Kuenning contends that over‑reliance on electronics erodes basic mental “muscles,” leaving students unable to perform simple calculations without aid.
- Former administrator Janet Hoult equates using AI to complete assignments with plagiarism, asserting it cheats students out of genuine education.
- All three correspondents agree that AI should not be banned outright, but its integration must be guided by clear pedagogical goals and strict accountability.
- The debate highlights a broader tension: preparing students for an AI‑driven world while preserving foundational skills and academic integrity.
- Effective policies will likely combine teacher‑led instruction, AI‑augmented practice, and rigorous assessment of original work.
Context of Goldberg’s Column
Jonah Goldberg’s April 21 op‑ed, “Keep artificial intelligence out of American classrooms,” frames AI as a tempting shortcut that may dull students’ capacity for independent thought. He warns that if learners lean on generative tools for answers, they risk neglecting the mental effort required to master core concepts. Goldberg’s stance reflects a growing concern among educators that technology, while powerful, can supplant rather than supplement the learning process when used indiscriminately. His piece sparked a lively exchange in the letters section, drawing responses from a student, a teacher, and an administrator—each offering a distinct lens on how AI intersects with pedagogy.
Student Perspective: Aryana Ramirez
Aryana Ramirez, a high‑school student from San Diego, begins her letter by acknowledging Goldberg’s point that AI “can become a dangerous crutch.” Yet she swiftly pivots to argue that “when used correctly, it has proved to be beneficial in ways traditional tools cannot be.” Ramirez highlights two concrete advantages: immediate feedback that accelerates learning and personalized explanations tailored to each student’s grasp of a topic. She concedes that AI has drawbacks but insists that abolishing it would ignore the reality that “the next generation is growing up in an AI‑driven world.” For Ramirez, the goal is not to eliminate AI but to teach peers how to employ it responsibly, thereby preparing them for the technological landscape they will inherit.
Teacher’s Concern: Geoff Kuenning
Geoff Kuenning of Claremont echoes Goldberg’s caution, stating he “rarely find[s] myself in complete agreement with Goldberg, but he wisely points out that if we let our children lean on electronics of all sorts, they will never develop their mental ‘muscles.’” Drawing from classroom experience, Kuenning observes that many students can grasp advanced calculus or Einstein’s relativity yet falter when asked to add two‑digit numbers without a calculator. He describes the scene vividly: while he solves a simple problem instantly, learners “are digging through their backpack for a calculator.” For Kuenning, mastery of fundamentals—basic arithmetic, logical reasoning, and problem‑solving—must precede any reliance on electronic aids; otherwise, students risk becoming dependent on technology rather than cultivating independent cognitive strength.
Administrator’s Warning: Janet Hoult
Janet Hoult, a former administrator at Cal State Los Angeles, frames the AI debate in stark ethical terms. She recounts an incident where a professor and two students submitted identical essays they had purchased, calling it “not getting an education.” Hoult extends this analogy to AI, asserting that “students using artificial intelligence to do the work for them is also not educational; it’s just another way of cheating.” She argues that when learners outsource their intellectual labor to AI, they “cheat themselves” of the critical thinking and research skills that education aims to cultivate. Hoult’s letter underscores a fear that unchecked AI use could erode academic integrity, turning assignments into exercises in prompt engineering rather than genuine scholarship.
Broader Implications for Education
The three letters collectively illuminate a nuanced tension: AI’s potential to augment learning versus its capacity to diminish essential intellectual habits. Ramirez emphasizes the tool’s efficiency and adaptability, Kuenning stresses the preservation of foundational skills, and Hoult warns against the erosion of original work. Together, they suggest that the solution lies not in an outright ban or unrestricted adoption but in deliberate, guided integration—one that pairs teacher‑led instruction with AI‑driven practice, includes clear policies on attribution and originality, and provides students with opportunities to reflect on when and how AI aids rather than replaces their own cognition. Such an approach would aim to equip learners for a future where AI is ubiquitous while ensuring they retain the capacity to think, calculate, and create independently.
Conclusion
The dialogue sparked by Goldberg’s column reveals that educators, students, and administrators share a common apprehension: the danger of allowing AI to become a substitute for genuine learning. Yet they also recognize that, when wielded with discipline and purpose, AI can deliver rapid feedback, customize instruction, and mirror the technological realities of modern society. Moving forward, schools will benefit from crafting frameworks that harness AI’s strengths—such as instant formative assessment and adaptive tutoring—while safeguarding the development of core competencies and academic integrity. By doing so, they can honor both the promise of innovation and the timeless goal of education: to nurture capable, independent thinkers.
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/story/2026-04-24/ai-in-classrooms-schools