California State University faculty are pressing state lawmakers to place limits on the system’s use of generative artificial intelligence, warning that the technology should not be allowed to replace professors, counselors, coaches or other union-represented employees.
A bill supported by the California Faculty Association, which represents faculty and other academic employees across the CSU system, is moving through the Legislature and could soon reach Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measure is authored by state Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, a Riverside Democrat, giving the Inland Empire a direct role in one of California higher education’s most closely watched debates over artificial intelligence.
The proposal comes as the 23-campus CSU system, the nation’s largest public four-year university system, has expanded access to AI tools for students and employees. CSU campuses in Southern California and the Inland Empire, including Cal State San Bernardino, Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Los Angeles and others, are part of the systemwide technology shift.
Faculty union leaders say they are not trying to stop professors from using AI in classrooms or research. Their concern is that, without clear rules, campuses could begin using AI to perform work traditionally done by faculty and staff.
“We do have some cases of the potential replacement of faculty work by AI, and so I personally am very concerned about closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out,” said Kevin Wehr, a Sacramento State sociology professor who leads the union’s bargaining team. “We’re trying to keep ahead of a rapidly changing set of technologies.”
The CSU system last year signed a $17 million agreement with OpenAI to give students and faculty access to ChatGPT education tools. The system later renewed the contract at $13 million a year for three years, according to LAist.
A CSU survey released in the spring found that slightly more than half of faculty members said AI was having a negative effect on their teaching. About one-third of students said their professors were teaching them how to use AI effectively.
CSU has also been identified in a state government report as using “high risk” AI tools, including software intended to detect cheating during remote exams.
The growing use of AI has already prompted labor disputes. The state labor relations board is scheduled to consider issues tied to CSU’s purchase and rollout of AI tools such as ChatGPT. The California Faculty Association filed an unfair labor practice charge last year, arguing that the university system’s AI initiative raised workplace issues that should have been negotiated with the union.
A separate dispute centered on Sacramento State, where the union alleged in 2025 that campus officials considered using AI chatbots that could draw from course materials voluntarily submitted by professors. CSU denied wrongdoing.
The union also challenged a proposed recommendation that students seek mental health support from AI tools when campus counselors were unavailable.
CSU and the union settled that matter in March, and the union withdrew its complaint. As part of the agreement, Sacramento State said it would not implement autonomous programs or bots whose primary purpose is to perform bargaining unit work or evaluate faculty without first meeting and conferring with the union.
At a June legislative hearing, Cervantes said colleges and universities are increasingly experimenting with AI, often without clear standards.
“Many institutions of higher education are exploring options to integrate AI into their courses and curriculum,” Cervantes said. “In many instances, this has been done without any boundaries or guardrails.”
The California Faculty Association represents professors, lecturers, coaches, librarians and mental health counselors. Since 2020, the union has contributed at least $3.4 million to state legislators and candidates for statewide office. Cervantes has received at least $64,650 from the union since 2016, according to Digital Democracy, a government disclosure tool operated by CalMatters.
CSU has not taken a position on Cervantes’ bill. But AI remains an issue in ongoing labor contract talks between the university system and the faculty union.
The Sacramento State dispute illustrates the broader tension. Union filings alleged that Alexander “Sasha” Sidorkin, then the campus’s chief AI officer, created a mental health chatbot for students and linked to it on a student resources webpage with a statement suggesting AI was better than no help when a counselor was unavailable.
CSU’s chancellor’s office replied to the labor board that the allegations were unfounded. The university said Sidorkin did not create such bots and that no AI bots were implemented to perform counseling work.
Sidorkin, who remains at Sacramento State as an education professor and is a union member, said the allegation was inaccurate. He said he did not create a bot but recommended that students use ChatGPT if they could not find a counselor. He said he still believes students should be told in a syllabus that an AI tool may be preferable to having no support at all during a mental health episode.
Sidorkin said Sacramento State eliminated the chief AI officer position last April during systemwide layoffs and removed the website connected with the role.
The union also alleged that Sidorkin created an AI tool to interpret the faculty union’s contract with CSU and that the tool produced incorrect information. The complaint said CSU stopped using the contract interpretation bot after the union objected.
Another concern involved course materials. According to the union complaint, Sidorkin invited faculty to submit syllabi and class content so they could receive customized AI tutoring bots for their courses. The complaint included an email in which Sidorkin told faculty that campus leaders had directed him to retract the request, though he appeared to disagree with the decision.
Sidorkin told CalMatters that about 18 professors sent him course materials the first day he invited submissions. He said filing the labor charges was a mistake and argued that many faculty members are already experimenting with AI tools to support teaching.
Patrick Oberle, an associate professor of geography at Sacramento State and a union member, said the faculty association became involved because AI could affect work performed by faculty and counselors. He said the concern is not simply whether technology is useful, but whether it could be deployed without bargaining over its impact on employees.
Oberle said faculty worry about “mission creep,” such as campuses encouraging instructors to shift more grading work to AI and then increasing class sizes. That has not happened formally, he said, but union members fear it could reduce student contact with instructors and lessen the need to hire faculty as others retire.
“We’re trying to accommodate the folks who are deeply opposed to AI’s very existence, and also accommodate the folks that are very excited about all of its possibilities,” Oberle said.
Cervantes’ bill is one of several AI-related labor measures moving through Sacramento. Senate Bill 947 would stop employers from relying solely on AI tools to discipline or fire workers. Labor unions and some nonprofit groups support the bill, while business groups including the California Chamber of Commerce and Lyft oppose it. Newsom vetoed a similar proposal last year.
Another proposal, Senate Bill 903, would restrict the use of AI in psychotherapy, including banning therapists from offering therapy through chatbots and prohibiting bots from making independent therapeutic decisions. The California Chamber of Commerce and the California Medical Association oppose that bill.
During the hearing on Cervantes’ CSU faculty bill, Assemblymember Mike Fong, an Alhambra Democrat who chairs the Assembly Higher Education Committee, said AI should assist people, not displace them.
“We know technology can augment humans, but it should never replace humans,” Fong said.
The committee then voted 10-0 to advance the measure.
Original source: CalMatters
