What Purdue’s AI Decision Gets Right—and What It Demands From Leaders
by Claire L. Brady, EdD
“The shift described in this article—from policing AI use to preparing students for an AI-shaped world—is the right one. But preparation requires more than permission. It requires clarity, coordination, and courage.”
In a recent article, Forbes highlighted Purdue University’s new AI requirement for all undergraduates. Purdue’s decision to require all undergraduates to demonstrate basic AI competency beginning in 2026 is a milestone moment for higher education—and one worth applauding. Not because Purdue has “solved” AI education (no one has), but because it signals something far more important: institutional seriousness.
For the past two years, many campuses have hovered in an uncomfortable middle space with AI. We’ve launched pilots, formed task forces, debated academic integrity, and experimented at the margins. That work mattered. But it was never enough. The scale and speed of AI’s impact on learning, work, research, and society demand leadership that moves beyond curiosity into commitment.
Purdue’s approach does exactly that.
Rather than adding a generic AI course or imposing a one-size-fits-all mandate, Purdue is embedding AI working competency into every undergraduate program—tailored by discipline, grounded in real projects, and integrated into existing degree pathways. That distinction matters. AI fluency is not about turning every student into a computer scientist. It’s about ensuring that every graduate understands how AI shapes their field, where it adds value, where it introduces risk, and how to use it responsibly and effectively.
This is what it looks like to “lean in and lean forward,” as President Mung Chiang aptly put it.
But here’s the part higher ed leaders cannot ignore: bold requirements without commensurate support will fail. Full stop.
If we believe AI competency is essential for graduates—and Purdue’s move suggests we do—then institutions must provide leadership, resources, and infrastructure that match the importance of getting this right. That means investing in faculty development, not just issuing expectations. It means giving academic leaders the time, staffing, and tools needed to redesign curricula thoughtfully. It means establishing clear governance, ethical frameworks, and ongoing partnerships with industry and employers, as Purdue plans to do through standing advisory boards.
Most importantly, it means treating AI literacy as a shared institutional responsibility—not a burden pushed onto individual faculty members or siloed units.
Too often in higher education, we ask people to innovate on top of already full workloads, with limited guidance and even fewer incentives. AI cannot become another unfunded mandate or compliance checkbox. Done poorly, it will deepen inequities across programs and institutions. Done well, it can level the playing field, enhance learning, and prepare students for a workforce that is already being reshaped in real time.
The shift described in this article—from policing AI use to preparing students for an AI-shaped world—is the right one. But preparation requires more than permission. It requires clarity, coordination, and courage.
Purdue won’t be the last institution to move in this direction. Ohio State University and many others have already taken similar steps, and many others are watching closely. My hope is that as more campuses follow suit, they don’t just copy the requirement—they replicate the leadership behind it.
