Artificial Intelligence in Educational Institutions: A Crisis of Understanding or a Crisis of Conscience?

Dr. Salah Da’ak

A few days ago, an article published on the ‘Litre Reports’ blog was not merely passing commentary in the intellectual arena; it seemed like an alarm bell resonating through universities. The idea conveyed by the thinker Paul Sagar was clear and shocking: this is no longer just a technological development, but a transformation that could change the very meaning of education itself. In Sudan, we do not have the luxury of observing this proposition from a distance. Our universities, already suffering from limited resources and unstable conditions, now find themselves facing a new challenge, one unseen but quietly seeping into lecture halls and notebooks.
The student no longer needs to stay up late or wrestle with an idea until it takes shape. I recall our days at Khor Taqat Secondary School, a model of strict discipline and study. We lived in an environment resembling a closed camp, with an integrated educational system that began with accommodation, extended to meal times, and ended in the classroom, where the number of students never exceeded twenty-six.
At the beginning of the academic year, Mr Al-Seni Abdullah Marouf, the school principal at the time, stood at the classroom door, leaning against its frame without entering, and said to us: ‘You are now at Khor Taqat School. Here, we do not give you spelling as you took it in middle school (word-by-word memorisation). Instead, we will give you dictation in English.’ That is, the student, fresh from middle school, was required to write a complete passage. It was a formidable, unforgettable moment, reflected on the faces of the young students who then applied themselves to learning with rare seriousness. These were the students who would enter universities fully prepared, with sharp minds and souls open to learning, free of distractions.
There was no mobile phone to distract us, no WhatsApp or Facebook to steal time or scatter concentration. The student relied on what he read, memorised, and then reproduced in the exam. Effort was the only path. Parents even feared the television for their children; watching a series no longer than forty-five minutes was considered a deferred luxury. The television was turned off throughout the school days and only switched on at the weekend. If our parents had witnessed the era of smartphones and social media, which accompany students wherever they go, 24 hours a day, what would their stance have been?
Today, the scene has changed completely. Every kind of distraction is available, and with the click of a button, tools like ChatGPT can write whatever the student wishes without any effort: a well-organised text, a clear idea, and perhaps a high grade. Everything seems fine… except for one question that is not asked: who is actually learning? Is the student truly learning, or is something else happening in the shadows? The truth is, I pity students these days for the sheer number of distractions; WhatsApp, Facebook, the phone never leaves their hands, even at times supposed to be dedicated to memorisation and study. These are temptations hard to resist, overcome only by those who possess a strong will, the ability to strive against the self, and clarity in defining goals. Otherwise, the student becomes a victim of these diversions.
On the surface, it seems comfortable: speed, achievement, a shortcut. But the reality is much deeper. Writing was never merely a task to be submitted; it was a path to understanding. The student wrote to arrive, not just to submit. They struggled, made mistakes, tried again, and then approached the meaning. This journey, with all it entails, is what makes the difference. When this journey disappears, we lose not just the assignment but the very building of the mind. Here lies the danger: the issue is no longer just about cheating; it has become a question of the kind of person we are sending out into society.
The academic assignment was never just a passing test; it was an exercise in responsibility and genuine preparation for life. When we give a student a mathematics problem involving sine, cosine, and Pythagoras’ theorem, we are not merely testing their ability to solve it; we are testing their approach to fulfilling a duty. Through this, we see the outlines of their future. Some complete their assignments on time and submit them; these are the ones who will later handle work seriously and responsibly. Some complete it quietly at home without fuss. Some always need help; these we find in the workplace, unable to accomplish tasks on their own. And some do not care, neither in study nor in work.
The most dangerous category is those who copy from another’s notebook without understanding. These may lead to grave errors in their professional lives, perhaps to violations that get them dismissed from work or land them in bigger problems, leading to severe consequences. These problems relate to commitment and apathy and may harm their future lives. What we experience during study is, in truth, preparation for what we will face later: training in responsibility, in completing a duty, in appreciating the value of time, commitment, and achievement. The mathematics exercise the student solves is the same task they will encounter in their future life, and their behaviour towards it reflects their commitment to life.
In this sense, study was not merely education and memorisation; it was behaviour and a lifestyle through which a person’s character was built. I return to Khor Taqat School once more, where there were activities that brought out talents: boarding house evenings, organised competitions showcasing talents in poetry, literature, theatre, music, singing, sports, and Quran recitation, in a refined manner that genuinely prepared students for university with clear goals and intellectual maturity, making them more aware of life.
For this reason, distance learning deprives students of the social and intellectual interaction that brings out the best of their abilities and prepares them for the next stage of life. Moreover, complete reliance on artificial intelligence could have profound effects on the quality of students and graduates, as well as on their ability to be productive members of the workforce.
In a country like Sudan, where the certificate remains a key to employment, the issue becomes even more sensitive: what does it mean for thousands of graduates to hold similar certificates while their real abilities differ? How can an employer trust a certificate that does not reflect its holder’s effort?
Distance learning requires controls and capabilities. Some sciences are received aurally and must be taken directly from the professor. Others are only acquired through practice. A large part relies on team spirit and collaborative work. None of this is achievable while the student is alone at a phone screen. Furthermore, there are skills and behaviours only acquired in a genuine university environment, through interaction with different cultures and ideas – a ‘culture of interaction’ difficult to compensate for remotely, especially with the challenges of AI, which make distinguishing between genuine understanding and superficial knowledge a complex task.
We may find ourselves facing a confused reality in which the value of the certificate declines and doubt prevails. We might be forced to return to traditional assessment methods to discover what the university should have said from the start. Although some see the solution in tightening supervision and returning to in-hall examinations, the problem is deeper than that. AI did not create the crisis; it revealed it. It revealed that we cared more about what was written than about what was understood, that we were preoccupied with form and neglected substance.
The real challenge is not in preventing these tools – that is nearly impossible – but in redefining learning itself: how do we teach students to use them without losing their own minds, to make them an aid, not a substitute? The responsibility does not fall on the student alone. Still, it extends to the professor and educational institutions, which are now required to innovate assessment methods that reveal genuine understanding, relying on discussion, analysis, and direct explanation, and to enact clear laws that protect the value of knowledge and limit blind copying, especially in higher education.
In the end, the problem is not that the machine writes… the problem is that the human stops thinking. Perhaps what should be emphasised is that we are not facing a battle between human and machine, but between a present mind and a submissive one. Tools will remain and evolve, but the real difference will remain in who uses them well and who makes themselves subservient to them.
The student who uses these tools as a reference, discusses them, tests them, and reformulates them is the one who will lead complex work environments in the future. As for the one who merely copies, they are not shortening the path as they think, but merely postponing their weakness until the moment of confrontation, where no machine can save them, and no ready-made text can answer for them.
The most dangerous aspect is that getting used to ready-made solutions not only weakens knowledge but also weakens the will. The one who has not learned to be patient in understanding will not be patient with life’s complexities. The one who has not trained to bear the responsibility of their assignment will not bear the responsibility of their decisions.
For this reason, we need not only to develop curricula but also to revive the meaning of learning in students’ hearts. We must restore to them the value of questioning, the joy of discovery, the passion for learning, the spirit of healthy competition, the honour of trying even with mistakes, and cultivate in them intellectual courage, not merely the ability to answer.
For knowledge was never just a race towards the correct answer; it was a journey towards deeper understanding. And if the machine can write… only the human is able to understand, to perceive, and to create meaning.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=12936