Artificial intelligence was one of several big topics at the 2026 Jenzabar Annual Meeting (JAM)—and overall sentiment feels optimistic. Users are knowledgeable about the prospect of leveraging AI-powered tools on campus, including how they can streamline manual processes, enable greater access to data, and free up time for staff to focus on more strategic initiatives. So, if everyone understands the opportunities of AI, are institutions ready for full-scale AI adoption? The answer to that is nuanced.
In one session at JAM, “AI Sentiment on Campus,” Jenzabar presenters Chris Morgan, Associate Vice President of Innovation, and Chris O’Brien, Director of User Experience, highlighted a Jenzabar survey of nearly 200 institutions which focused on opinions, concerns, and opportunities associated with AI in higher education. Among the most prevalent findings: The demand for AI exists, but the lack of enablement and policy are inhibiting institution-wide programs.
Campus Stakeholders Want AI
According to the survey, as well as attendees in the JAM session, most stakeholders on campus are optimistic about AI. The survey found that 78% of respondents are likely to adopt AI tools, primarily because they believe AI will save meaningful time in their work or improve their work overall. However, this sentiment varies by role.
Cabinet members were generally positive about AI and were noted as the most active daily AI users. Staff and administrators were the most ready to adopt AI solutions, recognizing that AI tools can help accelerate tedious tasks so they can spend time on work that requires human judgment. IT leaders expressed similar optimism, but also emphasized the importance of governance and trust. Faculty landed mostly in the gray, hinting at optimism but sharing reservations regarding values, ethics, and data privacy in how AI is used in the classroom.
The findings suggest there is clear opportunity to use artificial intelligence—when implemented ethically, strategically, and with purpose. But “artificial intelligence” can include myriad applications and capabilities. Today, consumers are using AI every day in their personal lives, doing everything from trip planning, calendar management, and even financial planning. What’s to stop those free-to-use applications from making their way into campus operations without appropriate oversight?
Chris Morgan investigated this challenge during the JAM session. Noting that most unlicensed AI tools leverage user input to train their models and thereby potentially expose their data, he asked participants if their institution used licensed AI tools. Only a small portion of attendees raised their hands, underscoring a key challenge: AI sprawl and lacking governance.
The Governance Gap
The absence of clear policy appears to be what’s holding back large-scale AI adoption across higher education. Further, the lack of policy could put institutions at higher risk for IP violations, institutional liability, weak data protection, privacy/security law violations, and AI-enabled hacking. The Jenzabar survey found that only 26% of respondents said their institution has a formal institution-wide AI policy; 35% said their college has no policy (or they are unsure).
“It’s difficult to have a single AI policy in higher ed,” one attendee noted, explaining that higher education was simply too diverse to establish a comprehensive, overriding policy for AI use. Several attendees stated that the AI policies their institutions have are based on what is happening on other campuses or the industry at large, not necessarily aligning with their specific objectives or use cases.
The impact of absent policy is far reaching, often leading to what some in the survey called “the wild west;” teams operate in silos and either recklessly adopt AI or avoid it entirely to remain compliant. Some IT staff, meanwhile, have no clear direction regarding shutting down or advocating for certain AI tools.
For institutions to adopt artificial intelligence—and to use those tools effectively without introducing unnecessary risk—decision-makers need to collaborate, establish, and communicate clear, legible policy.
Getting Policy on the Map
Policy is a broad concept, but governance for AI use needs to extend beyond rules. Policies should include which applications or tools are compliant, but they should also include education. According to the Jenzabar survey, 48% of respondents said they want clear policies around acceptable AI use, but 47% also said they want training. There is a clear correlation between these issues: Training must educate users on which solutions they can use as well as the scope in which those tools can be used.
Another approach institutions might use to improve AI policy-making is to form cross-departmental committees in charge of establishing governance. Collaboration across teams and roles ensures a broader understanding of how different users would leverage AI tools. This insight can help decision-makers build specific policies regarding targeted AI deployments or broader plans that cover a mix of use cases.
Institutions may also consider working with trusted technology partners to mitigate risk and policy challenges when adopting AI. Jenzabar has a unique ethical, strategic, and purposeful approach to AI. Jenzabar builds guardrails, defaults, and transparency directly into its solutions (rather than assuming institutions will supply that infrastructure), thereby minimizing institutional risk.
As AI continues to gain momentum in and outside of higher education, institutions must do their best to keep pace by developing policies that empower users across campus to leverage AI with confidence. Given the optimistic view on artificial intelligence, institutions have an opportunity to become more efficient and provide users with more agency—if they have the governance to back it up.
