At Durham University, I have been Chair of the Board of Examiners for Philosophy since 2016.

I feel that it is my responsibility to raise a vital issue in higher education, one whose true significance is not understood.

• Senior academics responsible for department and University-wide assessment have engaged on several occasions to listen to and address the writer’s views.
• We have asked for factual evidence of the writer’s assertions but it has not been forthcoming.

The issue I am addressing affects students past, present and future. It involves a crime that is not victim-less. It is this:

The lazy student cheats with professional-grade versions of AI chatbots such as ChatGPT or Claude, and gets a first-class result.

The hard-working student uses no bots, or a non-professional bot honestly, thinking and writing for themselves, but gets a 2:1. That’s not fair.

This is personal opinion and unsubstantiated.

• While generative AI is a significant challenge for assessment it is incorrect to suggest that Durham University (or indeed any other university) has been inactive or inattentive.
• There are challenges in adapting assessment to generative AI, and this work is ongoing. 
• At Durham this issue has been considered and acted upon through Senate, through Boards of Studies, and through a substantial programme of curriculum reform.

Further detail:

• Durham University has addressed AI and assessment directly through its academic governance. Senate—of which all Heads of Department are members — formally approved the University’s policy on the use of generative AI in assessment. This policy establishes clear expectations for the ethical and transparent use of AI, and requires that assessment be designed to remain robust and fair in an AI-enabled context.
• This work has not been confined to policy statements. It has been developed and implemented through Departmental Boards of Studies, which are responsible for programme and assessment design.
• These Boards have been actively engaged in reviewing and adapting assessment in their disciplines. Academic staff are therefore not peripheral to this process; they are central to it, operating through established mechanisms of academic oversight.
• In parallel, the University is undertaking a comprehensive Academic Programme Frameworks project across all undergraduate and postgraduate provision. This embeds requirements for AI-secure and pedagogically appropriate assessment directly into programme design. The Frameworks have been considered by all Boards of Studies and scrutinised by Senate on three separate occasions. This represents sustained, institution-wide engagement with the implications of AI for assessment.
• There is training and support for students and staff on effective and ethical use of AI.
• Within this wider context, proposals by the writer such as abandoning anonymous marking do not address the core issue and would risk undermining established safeguards designed to ensure fairness and consistency.

This is factually incorrect.

• Traditional invigilated exams are one AI-secure assessment method.
• Others include in-person oral assessments, presentations, practical work, process-based assessment etc., many of which are employed in Durham programmes.
• Importantly, we do not make decisions on how to assess our students based on financial considerations. Moreover, we have never said this.

AI, in contrast, is now often impractical to detect with enough reliability to meet the high standards of proof required for accusations of cheating.

Perhaps there is no ultimate alternative to sit-down exams – other options such as vivas are very time-consuming. 

This is personal opinion, with no factual evidence to back this up.

• Within the wider context to address AI described above, proposals by the writer such as abandoning anonymous marking do not address the core issue and would risk undermining established safeguards designed to ensure fairness and consistency.
• At a recent meeting, while the writer’s colleagues understood his concerns, they did not think that the solutions that he was presenting were workable.  

We need an immediate response to the unfairness is the coming exam season.

Yet most of my colleagues don't seem to understand how it is fairer.

Factual clarification:

We are already in the middle of the 2025/26 exam season at Durham. It is not coming.

It is not feasible to change assessment methods at the last minute – it requires reasonable notice to students.  

Also see above comment about engaging with the writer and how we are addressing AI as a university.

Personal opinion and unsubstantiated.

But this vain pursuit is becoming very difficult and may soon be impossible. AI "tells" that remain are being aggressively stamped out by AI companies.

One cannot mark essays under the COVID system, in the era of ChatGPT.

Yet the university leadership is still in the ostrich position.

This is factually incorrect and personal opinion.

We strongly dispute “university leaders is in the ostrich position”. See above the detail on how we at Durham are addressing proactively AI. 

There will be other such examples across the sector that UUK could advise on (150+ universities).

While we cannot comment on disciplinary panels, which are confidential, surely this comment contradicts what is said above – that AI is detected and we will take action in respect of students who use it improperly.

We have systems in place if cheating is detected as the writer suggests.  Markers are expected to follow these processes. 

Personal assumption and unsubstantiated.  

The article focuses on personal opinion based on the writer’s role at Durham only and draws on no other research. 

Universities seem unable to respond in a timely manner to the current crisis.

Academics as well as the leadership are grumbling. Someone surely has to blow the whistle?

Personal opinion and unsubstantiated.

See above factual comment on action being taken at Durham. 

I guess that few whistle-blowers are enthusiastic. I have never engaged in a lawsuit, or been the victim of one, on any matter.

A cursory Google search reveals that UK whistleblower laws protect my salary and pension, and I'll get a hundred quid for this article. So I'm prepared to light the blue touchpaper and retire, in both senses.

Writing a piece for The Spectator is not whistleblowing.

There are established whistleblowing processes.

The imperative is the well-being of students who are suffering under the present system, though they don't realise it.

Staff in UK universities, and elsewhere, are not able to mark with the integrity the matter demands, because there is no sufficiently reliable way of detecting or preventing improper use of AI.

Personal opinion and unsubstantiated.