Here is a selection of my thoughts on the ethics of teaching creative writing as a neurodivergent academic in the age of generative artificial intelligence use by students?! As a dyslexic poet and literary critic, I have an unusual relationship with language and teaching creative writing in the university setting. Which came first the poetry or the dyslexia is hard to say.
I could vent forever on the horrors of grading composition students on grammar, punctuation, and spelling, but that feels like shouting into the void older than myself. Breaking students by telling them that no one will ever take them seriously in writing without standard english is the fast way, but gentling students by encouraging them to read and write more so that they assimilate standard english is the sure way. My favorite part of teaching creative writing is telling students not to worry about grammar punctuation and spelling because it is part of developing their voice as writers. I quote SJ Fowler’s defense of his poetry collection, The Rottweiler’s Guide to the Dog Owner, where he begins with the warning to the reader ‘ALL ERRATA ARE INTENTIONAL’. Fowler is certain of his voice as a writer and certain that those nonstandard grammar, punctuation, and spelling constructions he utilizes are part of his writing. Here is a poetic license that I can loan to my students for a semester to explore the slipperiness of language. I tell my students that is how I will read their work. If innovative grammar punctuation and spelling leads to misinterpretation of their work, then they can revise as part of the normal revision process.
Is it right that generative AI will re-inscribe or rein scribe and why does it matter? Please let me dyslexic poet all over this for a paragraph. Generative AI is appealing to neurodivergent students, especially dyslexics as a corrective for their perceived deficits in writing. Let us have some sympathy for students who have struggled their whole lives with spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Does generative AI have the potential to make learning disabilities like mine disappear? I suspect it does, but I want to suggest that we might be losing something if we move in this direction, the rein scribe. The rein scribe and re-inscribe exist to my dyslexic mind as echoes of each other. If you neurotypical readers are wondering where the rein scribe came from, it is the result of the dyslexic distain for punctuation including hyphens and an autocorrect reaction. When I see these words on the page they so similar I might miss out the difference. However, reading these words reveals that there are actually three words and forces me to consider rein and scribe separately. The word rein recalls the practice of reining on horseback, where a rider guides a horse through a set pattern of movements derived from herding cattle. Here we now have generative AI herding writing or the one who writes or the scribe through a set pattern of movement through language and a richer image than re-inscribe.
I think it is unsound pedagogy to ask students to take an integrity pledge saying that they will not use generative AI. In order for a pledge to be meaningful to students, it needs to include clear results for its violation and not vague suggestions of doom. It is important to consider what we mean with the word pledge. Is it only a promise, something to be broken and apologized for and forgotten? Or is a pledge something more material and lasting? In its origins, the word pledge means action providing bail, guarantor, hostage, finding sureties, something deposited as security for the fulfillment of a contract, among other things according to the Oxford English Dictionary. The consequences listed here are dire indeed and definitely not what a student suspected breaking their integrity pledge of using generative AI for assessments would experience. In the absence of reliable generative AI detection software, how can a university justify finding any consequences for students using the technology? In the absence of any meaningful consequences, how can we expect students not to use generative AI? In the absence of student belief in our ability as teachers to hold them accountable for their work or lack thereof, have we not taught them to disrespect the university?
How to herd cats or redesign assessments so that students cannot use generative AI? The most common wisdom I have received is to simply make it impossible for students to utilize generative AI by removing their access to computers during assessments. Harvard calls this practice controlled assessment environments and defines it as “in-person assessments where AI assistance is untenable, such as written tests under strict supervision.” Requiring students to write out essays on paper in the classroom is one way to eliminate generative AI usage. However, I have grave concerns with controlled assessment environments from my lived experience as a dyslexic student. I know that the writing I produce in such environments will not accurately reflect my abilities in either creative or critical writing and that no amount of support will alter this fact after twenty-three years in school. My aversion to controlled assessment environments is so intense that I refused to take the graduate record examination and only applied to graduate programs where it was not required. It was my privilege that allowed me to make this decision for my academic future and it worked out really well for me in the United Kingdom university system. My students do not have this same level of privilege and therefore, I think it is important that I use mine to protect them.
Let me explain how controlled assessment environments impact dyslexic students using my own experiences. The very stress of a timed writing assessment is enough to intensify my experience of dyslexia. This means that is harder for me to read, spell, write, and think in a linear fashion. Janet Odgis interprets the International Dyslexia Association definition of dyslexia as:
an umbrella label for disorders that involve difficulty in learning to read or interpret words and letters, but do not affect general intelligence. It's thinking non-sequentially when not consciously focusing, and processing information in a circular manner instead of a linear one. It affects individuals with differing degrees of severity; many have a touch of it, but it seems to vary as to when it presents itself, based on stress and situational factors.
I can not think in a straight line to save my life. The copy and paste functions on my computers is essential to my writing process. I can not bear the idea of taking this away from my students. I know I sound unbelievably entitled in the sense of making my students live with my personal needs, however, I would ask everyone to consider if this is not what neurotypical teachers have been doing forever and a day? Let us give neurotypical teachers the credit they deserve for a pedagogy that says do as I say and as I do. There is transparency here and students appreciate it. So really all I am asking is for is the same transparency to allow me to adopt or keep a pedagogy that says do as I say and as I do.
The word essay comes from the word to try and when I teach students to write an essay that is exactly what I am teaching. I do not mean try a leaf of spinach, because you might like it. I mean trying out the writing process: reading, writing, revising, and repeating. Try to trust your lived experiences are meaningful and will always be more meaningful than what generative AI produces precisely because of your uniqueness. Your voice as a writer would not be yours without your faults.
Works Cited:
“About Dyslexia,” International Dyslexia Association, 2025, https://dyslexiaida.org/frequently-asked-questions-2/. Accessed 28 April 2025.
“Academic Integrity and Teaching With(out) AI.” HARVARD COLLEGE Office of Academic Integrity and Student Conduct, 2025, https://oaisc.fas.harvard.edu/academic-integrity-and-teaching-without-ai/. Accessed 20 April 2025.
“Essay.” Oxford English Dictionary, 2024, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/essay_n?tab=meaning_and_use#5253764. Accessed 24 April 2025.
Fowler, SJ. Rottweiler’s Guide to the Dog Owner. Eyewear Publishing, 1 January 2014.
Odgis, Janet. “Dyslexic Thinking: The Non-Linearity of Creativity.” HuffPost, 2017, https://www.huffpost.com/entry/dyslexic-thinkingthenon-linearity-of-creativity_b_591da53de4b0e8f558bb241b. Accessed 23 April 2025.
“Pledge.” Oxford English Dictionary, 2006, https://www.oed.com/dictionary/pledge_n?tab=meaning_and_use. Accessed 22 April 2025.
Julia Rose Lewis has taught Creative Writing at Universities in the United States and United Kingdom. She was given an award for excellence in Teaching and Learning from Kingston University. She is the author of seven poetry collections, nine pamphlets, and one essay collection.