344
Productivity & Workflow355
Automation & Workflow225
Software Development251
Marketing & Growth193
AI Infrastructure & MLOps176
Writing & Content Creation204
Photography & Imaging156
Data & Analytics142
Design & Creative170
Customer Support133
Sales & Outreach125
Education & Learning131
Voice & Speech135
Operations & Admin87
Dartmouth says Provost Santiago Schnell resigned after a faculty review found he used AI to substantially alter published writing without required disclosure.
In short: Dartmouth Provost Santiago Schnell resigned on Oct. 28, 2026, after a faculty committee found he used AI in published work without required disclosure.
Dartmouth College said Provost Santiago Schnell stepped down on October 28, 2026, and will leave the university. The announcement followed a faculty-led review of how he used AI in published writing.
The committee looked at three pieces that were published under rules that either banned certain AI use or required authors to say when they used it. The committee concluded that Schnell used AI to substantially change published writing without properly disclosing it. It said his conduct fell short of Dartmouth’s standards for integrity and professionalism, but it did not recommend disciplinary action.
In one academic paper, the committee found that Schnell used AI to substantially edit the manuscript, troubleshoot computer code (the instructions that tell a program what to do), and generate figures, and that he did not disclose that help. The review relied on available records, including logs from Dartmouth’s enterprise Claude account and emails. It did not use AI detection software.
The issue had grown after media reports raised questions about AI use in Schnell’s opinion writing and academic work. Schnell had said the AI help was mainly for language and organization, and later apologized for not consistently disclosing it. Dartmouth President Sian Beilock said the resignation was Schnell’s decision, and history professor Matthew Delmont was named interim provost.
Many schools now treat AI use like getting help from another person. If you get that help, you often have to say so, like adding a note that explains what changed and why. This case shows that universities may check those rules using ordinary records, like account logs and emails, not just tools that try to guess whether something was written by a machine.
Source: NYTimes