An Argument for Unrestricted Artificial Intelligence at ODU

The following is a formal letter and rhetorical analysis addressed to the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs regarding artificial intelligence integration in the university curriculum.

Dear Dr. Payne:

I am writing as a second-semester freshman majoring in cybersecurity at Old Dominion University, with plans to minor in artificial intelligence. [cite: 203, 204] Like many students, I have come to respect ODU’s strong commitment to academic integrity and genuine student learning. [cite: 205] Your current policies on artificial intelligence reflect a thoughtful concern that unrestricted AI use could undermine honest assessment and hinder true skill development. [cite: 206] These restrictions stem from a sincere desire to ensure that graduates are prepared for the workforce through their own efforts, not shortcuts. [cite: 207] I share that goal completely. However, I respectfully propose that ODU reconsider these restrictions and instead allow unrestricted AI use across all assignments, tests, and finals in every class—math, science, cybersecurity, and beyond. [cite: 208]

ODU’s current approach, while well-intentioned, creates an unintended gap between classroom learning and the professional world students will soon enter. [cite: 209] Artificial intelligence is no longer just a passing novelty or a simple convenience tool; [cite: 210] it is rapidly evolving into an essential, daily partner in almost every major industry. [cite: 211] Restricting its use today means we graduate students who are already a step behind our peers at institutions that have fully embraced AI. [cite: 212, 213] As a cybersecurity major, I see this mismatch every day. [cite: 214] In the modern workforce, professionals routinely rely on AI for rapid threat detection, automated code analysis, and real-time incident response. [cite: 215] Defending against AI-powered cyberattacks requires defenders who are equally adept at using AI. [cite: 216] If ODU’s mission is to prepare students for successful, long-term careers, then limiting access to the very tools we will use daily contradicts that mission. [cite: 217]

The logical case for a policy change is clear. AI is advancing at an unprecedented pace. [cite: 218] Soon, it will outperform humans in complex calculations, autonomous system design, and even full-scale security operations for enterprise companies. [cite: 219] Those who master AI as a daily collaborative tool will hold a massive operational advantage; [cite: 220] those who do not will simply fall behind. The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 confirms this reality, noting that “AI and big data are at the top of the list [of fastest-growing skills], followed closely by networks and cybersecurity and technological literacy” (World Economic Forum). [cite: 221] Restricting AI in the classroom does not build stronger graduates—it leaves them critically unprepared for the exact skills that modern employers demand from new hires. [cite: 222]

Right now is the critical moment for ODU to act (kairos). [cite: 223] The workforce is already being fundamentally reshaped by artificial intelligence, and universities that adapt early will produce the most competitive and adaptable graduates. [cite: 224] Waiting risks ODU falling behind peer institutions that are integrating AI without hesitation. [cite: 225] As a recent article in Forbes warns, “If institutions continue to vary widely in how (or whether) they teach AI skills, employers will face a fragmented talent pool—where some graduates are AI-savvy, and others are left behind not by choice, but by institutional lag” (“AI Is Reshaping”). [cite: 226] ODU has built a well-deserved reputation for innovation, particularly in technology and engineering. Embracing unrestricted AI use would align perfectly with that forward-thinking identity and strengthen our standing as a national leader in preparing students for tomorrow’s complex challenges. [cite: 227, 228, 229]

I understand and validate the administrative concerns regarding academic integrity. [cite: 230] Students must still demonstrate critical thinking, and faculty could easily adapt by requiring proper citation of AI assistance or written reflections on how they utilized the tool to reach their conclusions. [cite: 231] The greater risk, however, is graduating students who lack real-world readiness. [cite: 232] Allowing AI on every assignment, test, and final would not weaken learning—it would transform it. [cite: 233] Students could focus on higher-order skills: evaluating AI outputs for hallucinations, applying ethical judgment to machine-generated data, and solving problems creatively rather than memorizing formulas. [cite: 234] In cybersecurity, for example, AI will soon run entire company defenses autonomously; [cite: 235] those who learn to direct, audit, and oversee these systems now will become the leaders of the field tomorrow. [cite: 236]

This policy change would benefit every ODU student and the university as a whole. [cite: 237] We would produce graduates who are immediately workforce-ready, highly innovative, and better equipped to serve Virginia and the nation. [cite: 238] ODU would stand out as a bold, future-focused institution that truly lives its mission. [cite: 239] Thank you for considering this proposal, Dr. Payne. I am happy to discuss it further or provide additional student perspectives. [cite: 240] ODU has given me an outstanding start to my education; [cite: 241] removing AI restrictions would ensure every student leaves prepared to lead in an AI-driven world. [cite: 242]

Sincerely,
Israel Perkins [cite: 243, 244]

Rhetorical Analysis

In my letter to Dr. Brian K. Payne, I employed a Rogerian argument structure to address the complex and timely issue of unrestricted AI use at Old Dominion University. [cite: 245] As explored in my preparation for this assignment, Rogerian organization is highly effective when writing to an authority figure or a potentially skeptical audience. [cite: 246] It functions by first validating the opposing viewpoint—in this case, ODU’s legitimate concerns regarding academic integrity and the preservation of genuine student learning—before advancing my own position. [cite: 247] This rhetorical choice builds immediate trust and credibility, bypassing administrative defensiveness. [cite: 248] The letter opens by acknowledging the administration’s good intentions, then transitions smoothly into my core proposal: allowing AI without restriction on all assignments, tests, and finals across every discipline. [cite: 249]

My rhetorical appeals center heavily on Aristotle’s triangle while strategically incorporating kairos to emphasize the urgency of the moment. [cite: 250] For ethos, I establish my credibility in the opening lines by identifying myself as a second-semester cybersecurity major planning an AI minor, demonstrating a clear, vested interest in both the university’s reputation and the realities of the tech industry. [cite: 251] I intentionally avoid attacking administrators. For logos, I construct a logical cause-and-effect argument supported by two direct quotations from highly reputable sources. [cite: 252] The World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025 is utilized to prove that AI and big data are the fastest-growing skills, logically demonstrating that restricting AI contradicts ODU’s mission to prepare students for the future (World Economic Forum). [cite: 253] A Forbes article further reinforces this point, warning that institutional hesitation creates a “fragmented talent pool” where graduates are left behind by “institutional lag” (“AI Is Reshaping”). [cite: 254] These carefully chosen quotations serve as direct, undeniable evidence that my proposed solution aligns seamlessly with real-world economic demands. [cite: 255, 256]

For pathos, I appeal to the shared hopes and fears of the university community. [cite: 257] I describe the personal stakes for students, including myself, who risk falling behind in an increasingly competitive, AI-driven job market. [cite: 258] Finally, kairos is heavily emphasized throughout the fourth paragraph, stressing that “right now is the critical moment” to act. [cite: 259] Because AI is already actively reshaping industries, the letter argues that delaying action is not a neutral stance, but an active decision to fall behind peer institutions. [cite: 260]

The overall tone of the letter remains professional, individualistic, and persuasive from start to finish. [cite: 261] It is confident yet respectful, utilizing clear, concise sentence structures free of mechanical errors. [cite: 262] By meeting Dr. Payne where he is and then logically guiding him toward a policy that benefits the entire ODU community, the letter successfully fulfills the assignment’s requirements while demonstrating a practical mastery of rhetorical strategy. [cite: 263]