CE2: Structured Academic Controversy on AI & Ethics

DUE DATE: In class – see course schedule for your assigned SAC session.

SUBMISSION: No written submission is required, but your participation will be evaluated. Please be present, prepared, and engaged.

TIME ESTIMATE: We estimate this in-class activity will take about 45–50 minutes of active discussion, with an additional 15 minutes for preparation.

FEEDBACK LINK: If you have suggestions to improve the structure, clarity, or readings, please share them: Homework Feedback Form. This is not for clarification questions (which should go in #questions), but for thoughtful feedback on the learning experience.

What does it mean to “do the right thing” as a software engineer?

As AI systems reshape industries, institutions, and everyday life, the ethical stakes of software development have never been higher. From labor displacement to environmental harm to academic integrity, these technologies raise serious questions with no easy answers.

In this Structured Academic Controversy (SAC), you’ll investigate one such dilemma by arguing both sides. Each group will be assigned a topic and placed into a team of 3–4 students. There are 21 teams in total, distributed as follows:

• Teams 1–7: Topic 1 – WGA Strike & Generative AI
• Teams 8–14: Topic 2 – AI and Water Use
• Teams 15–21: Topic 3 – AI Cheating Tool & Protest in SWE

Within your team, you’ll split into a Pro and Con pair. Each pair will receive brief supporting materials to prepare arguments. After structured presentations, all students will drop roles and engage in an open discussion.

Through this assignment, you will:

1. Explore the real-world impacts of software beyond code

   • Understand how AI systems affect labor, access, accountability, and resources
   • Analyze software decisions through multiple lenses, including ethics, law, and economics

2. Develop ethical reasoning and empathy

   • Practice inhabiting and arguing a position you may not personally hold
   • Reflect on your own values and how they apply to engineering work

3. Build critical communication and collaboration skills

   • Learn how to paraphrase opposing views respectfully
   • Practice listening deeply before responding
   • Collaborate in a fast-paced discussion setting

You will be assigned one of the following topics based on your team number. Each topic includes optional readings and media to help you get started.

Topic: WGA Strike & Generative AI
Prompt:

Should entertainment companies be required to negotiate with unions before using generative AI tools for screenwriting?

• Roles:

  • WGA Writer / Advocate (Pro)
  • Studio Executive / Tech Strategist (Con)

• Context:
  During the 2023–2024 WGA strike, writers demanded protections from AI systems that could generate or revise scripts. Studios argue AI boosts efficiency and productivity, while writers fear job loss and creative erasure.

Suggested Reference Materials:

• 🎥 WGA Strike Explainer – Artec3D
• 📰 Brookings: Why the WGA’s Victory Over AI Matters

Topic: AI and Water Use
Prompt:

Should AI companies be legally required to publicly disclose and limit their water consumption for data center cooling?

• Roles:

  • Environmental Advocate / Local Official (Pro)
  • AI Engineer / Tech Company Rep (Con)

• Context:
  Large AI models are trained on energy-intensive servers that use vast amounts of water for cooling. Critics argue this is unsustainable in drought-prone areas. Tech companies argue disclosure mandates could stifle innovation and that water is used efficiently.

Suggested Reference Materials:

• 📰 Forbes: AI Is Accelerating the Loss of Our Scarce Water
• 🧪 University of Illinois: AI’s Challenging Waters

Topic: AI Cheating Tool & Protest in SWE
Prompt:

Should software engineers be ethically and professionally justified in developing AI-based “cheating” tools to protest flawed coding interviews?

• Roles:

  • Student Developer / Tech Activist (Pro)
  • University Ethics Officer / Tech Recruiter (Con)

• Context:
  A student who built an AI “interview cheating” tool was expelled after using it to secure real job offers. They claim it was an act of protest against LeetCode-style hiring. The case raises questions about academic freedom, protest, and integrity in a broken hiring system.

Suggested Reference Material:

• 💬 Viral LinkedIn Post – Columbia Student on “InterviewCoder” and Expulsion

You’ll be grouped into pairs (or quads), assigned one side of the issue, and follow the revised timing below:

• (2 min) Complete the Pre-SAC survey
• Read this assignment’s description

• (2 min) Quick introductions
• (10-15 min) Silent reading of your assigned position and research
• (3-7 min) In your pair, plan 2–3 strong arguments, assign speaking roles, and anticipate counterpoints

• (3 min) Pair A (Pro) presents their argument
• (2 min) Pair B (Con) paraphrases Pair A’s key points
• (3 min) Pair B (Con) presents their argument
• (2 min) Pair A (Pro) paraphrases Pair B’s key points
• (10 min) Follow-up Q&A between sides: clarify ideas, challenge assumptions, and push deeper into reasoning

• Drop assigned roles — speak from your personal perspective
• Reflect on how your thinking has shifted
• Consider trade-offs, compromises, or broader takeaways
• Complete the Post-SAC survey

To help us understand the impact of this Structured Academic Controversy (SAC) on your thinking, you are required to complete a short Pre-SAC and Post-SAC survey. Each survey will take less than 3 minutes.

Please complete the Pre-SAC Survey before you begin your team’s SAC discussion. Once your team finishes the full SAC process (including the open discussion), complete the Post-SAC Survey.

Your responses will be anonymized and used to improve future activities.

Fill this out before you start preparing with your team.
👉 Pre-SAC Survey Link

Fill this out after completing the full SAC process.
👉 Post-SAC Survey Link

Thank you for your thoughtful participation — your responses are an important part of how we evaluate and evolve this experience.

• Respect the process: Even if you disagree with your role, present its strongest arguments in good faith.
• Listen actively: Your goal is to understand, not just respond.
• Speak clearly and concisely: Support your claims with reasoning or examples.
• Stay engaged: Everyone is expected to contribute during all phases.

You don’t need to memorize these readings — they’re just a starting point to help you prepare. You’re welcome to bring in your own examples, arguments, or experiences.

And if you have feedback, we’re listening: Homework Feedback Form