Timothy M. Kwiatek

This letter addresses a hypothetical undergraduate student who is on the brink of outsourcing their creative writing assignment to ChatGPT. I argue that the student should not do so for three reasons. They are (1) that creativity is valuable not only because it results in new products, but also because it necessarily involves learning; (2) that creativity offers a path to figuring ourselves out; and (3) that creativity enables meaningful connection with others. As I show, these reasons generalize beyond creative writing assignments. They support the conclusion that students (and the rest of us) should do other creative things instead of outsourcing them to AI as well.

It has become increasingly common to endorse and implement anonymous grading as a way of promoting fairness or equality of opportunity in the classroom. The American Philosophical Association currently recommends anonymous grading, as do the Canadian Philosophical Association, the British Philosophical Association, the Society for Women in Philosophy, and Minorities and Philosophy. Despite its increasing prevalence, the practice has received surprisingly little attention in applied ethics. This paper begins filling this gap. I start by clarifying the ‘Standard Argument’ from fairness or equality of opportunity for anonymous grading. I then argue that the Standard Argument fails to support current models for anonymous grading. The issue: current models for anonymous grading are practically self-undermining if the aim is to reduce violations of equality of opportunity or fairness. So, if we want to address bias in grading because we care about equality of opportunity or fairness, we need to change how we do it.