Care Ethics for AI Governance in Higher Education

Higher education institutions have adopted artificial intelligence (AI) tools for proctoring, writing detection, student-success prediction, and student support at a pace that has outrun the ethical frameworks meant to govern them. Institutional AI policy has largely borrowed the fairness, accountability, and transparency vocabulary of commercial AI ethics, supplemented by an academic integrity frame focused on student misuse. Empirical studies document harms these frames are poorly equipped to register: automated proctoring that flags Black students and students with darker skin tones at higher rates, AI-text detectors that misclassify non-native English writing as machine-generated, and student-success models that are less accurate for racially minoritized students. This conceptual article introduces the Jones AI Ethics Framework for institutional use. The framework derives five components (Attentiveness, Responsibility, Competence, Responsiveness, and Trust) from Tronto's phases of care and operationalizes each through a corresponding domain of the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC) and is positioned alongside UNESCO's (2021) Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. The article describes how the framework was developed, specifies its contribution relative to existing care-ethics scholarship on AI, and applies it to two evidence-informed illustrative scenarios: algorithmic proctoring and AI-assisted writing detection. Five recommendations for faculty governance bodies, academic leaders, student affairs professionals, and faculty developers are each mapped to the framework's components. Limitations include the framework's conceptual status, its origin in counselor education, and the need for empirical validation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
International Journal of AI in Pedagogy Innovation and Learning Futures
Published
2026-10-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.46787/ijaipil.v1i4.7758
Primary Topic
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Care Ethics for AI Governance in Higher Education

Michael D. Jones
International Journal of AI in Pedagogy Innovation and Learning Futures
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
article

Care Ethics for AI Governance in Higher Education

Michael D. Jones
article en

Abstract

Higher education institutions have adopted artificial intelligence (AI) tools for proctoring, writing detection, student-success prediction, and student support at a pace that has outrun the ethical frameworks meant to govern them. Institutional AI policy has largely borrowed the fairness, accountability, and transparency vocabulary of commercial AI ethics, supplemented by an academic integrity frame focused on student misuse. Empirical studies document harms these frames are poorly equipped to register: automated proctoring that flags Black students and students with darker skin tones at higher rates, AI-text detectors that misclassify non-native English writing as machine-generated, and student-success models that are less accurate for racially minoritized students. This conceptual article introduces the Jones AI Ethics Framework for institutional use. The framework derives five components (Attentiveness, Responsibility, Competence, Responsiveness, and Trust) from Tronto's phases of care and operationalizes each through a corresponding domain of the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC) and is positioned alongside UNESCO's (2021) Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence. The article describes how the framework was developed, specifies its contribution relative to existing care-ethics scholarship on AI, and applies it to two evidence-informed illustrative scenarios: algorithmic proctoring and AI-assisted writing detection. Five recommendations for faculty governance bodies, academic leaders, student affairs professionals, and faculty developers are each mapped to the framework's components. Limitations include the framework's conceptual status, its origin in counselor education, and the need for empirical validation.

International Journal of AI in Pedagogy Innovation and Learning FuturesVol. 1(4)
University of the Cumberlands (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon