A university teaching assistant (TA) who leads discussion groups and grades assignments for large humanities classes has raised concerns about the increasing use of AI-generated content in student work. While the university and faculty are trying to create assignments and teaching methods that discourage the use of AI, the TA points out that enforcing these rules is difficult. Any attempt to strictly monitor AI use could lead to many false accusations, especially since AI detection tools are not always accurate. This creates a challenging situation for educators who must balance rule enforcement with supporting student learning. The TA believes in the value of a humanities education, which focuses on critical thinking, cultural understanding, and personal growth. However, they acknowledge that many students are stressed and may not see the immediate benefits of such an education. Enforcing strict rules against AI use can feel like an obstacle, making it harder to convince students of the importance of the humanities. This highlights a broader challenge: how to maintain academic standards while fostering a positive and engaging classroom environment. This discussion also touches on a larger trend known as the neoliberalization of universities, where humanities departments are increasingly expected to produce tangible "products" like essays or analyses, rather than focusing on the deeper goal of shaping individuals’ thinking and character. Philosopher Megan Fritts has argued that the original purpose of humanities education was to help students become thoughtful, reflective people, not just to produce academic content. This shift has raised concerns about what is truly being prioritized in higher education. Philosopher Shannon Vallor emphasizes the importance of practical wisdom, or phronesis, which is the ability to make good judgments in complex situations. She argues that this skill is developed through practice and critical thinking, which AI might undermine by reducing the mental effort required in learning. If students rely too heavily on AI, they may miss out on the cognitive challenges that help build practical wisdom. Vallor warns that over-reliance on AI could weaken students’ ability to think deeply and make thoughtful decisions. To address these issues, the TA suggests a more flexible approach. Rather than enforcing a strict "no AI" policy, educators could be transparent about the value of humanities education and allow students to choose whether or not to use AI. If they do use AI, students could be required to write a short in-class reflection explaining their choice and how it impacted their learning. This approach could encourage critical thinking and self-awareness, even if AI is used. However, the TA acknowledges that this approach may not always be feasible. If a strict "no AI" policy is in place, they may have to report suspected AI use, even if it means risking false accusations. In cases where there is uncertainty, the TA might choose to be more lenient if the student has participated meaningfully in class discussions. The TA recognizes the moral difficulty of this situation and the risk of educators feeling torn between their values and institutional demands. They argue that the rise of generative AI represents a significant challenge to the traditional mission of humanities education, calling for a rethinking of how these departments define their purpose and goals.