Recently, Rider’s student life Instagram account, @riderstudentlife, posted promotional flyers and graphics that are AI-generated. The initial suspenseful posts ultimately led to the announcement of the “Dîner en Cran” event, which created backlash over the use of AI content.

With the posts being labeled as “AI Content,” students quickly began posting on Fizz, a social media app for Rider students, to criticize Rider’s decision to use AI for the event’s advertising. One post questioned why the university was using AI when it has plenty of talented graphic design students and received 673 upvotes, which continues to climb. Other posts made similar comments, with students pointing out that someone who is a part of the graphic design major, minor, or club should have been given the opportunity to make the graphics instead.

The Rider University B.A. in Graphic Design page states that students will receive hands-on experience, yet instead of giving those students an opportunity to use their skills, Rider resorted to AI. Additionally, Rider has a Graphic Design Club, which would have been another way for the Office of Campus Life to connect with interested students to create promotional material. The club consists of students who are interested in graphic design and are looking for opportunities to gain experience, yet these students were overlooked in favor of AI use.

On one of the AI generated posts, a student commented that “@ridergraphicdesign would have done it better,” but in response, @riderstudentlife stated that they were “waiting for students to email up their portfolios to add their talents.” If students are expected to submit their portfolios and reach out to Campus Life themselves, how are they supposed to know about this opportunity? There doesn’t appear to be any post or email calling for graphic designers before the AI posts were made.

A former Rider professor who taught graphic design and was the previous advisor for the Graphic Design Club spoke out, commenting on the posts in agreement with other students’ criticism. Her comments help support the idea that the university had plenty of students who were available, interested, and could have easily taken on the task.

The AI use didn’t just stop at the graphics, as the email sent from the Office of Campus Life also appears to have been generated by AI. At this point, it comes into question how much thought was truly put into the event when all promotional material was seemingly AI-generated. Things continued to escalate when the @riderstudentlife account restricted comments under their post, which hid multiple comments that called out the use of AI-generated content. This eventually led to the account turning off the comments entirely on three of the AI-generated posts.

Fizz allowed students to continue talking about the use of AI, leading to students doubting the amount of work the Office of Campus Life puts into their advertising. Multiple students questioned how someone can be paid to simply put a prompt into AI. Even though Fizz isn’t quite an accurate survey of Rider’s student body, considering that not all Rider students use it, these posts are still receiving hundreds of upvotes, with the highest one currently reaching 981.

The backlash that students expressed on Fizz shows exactly why students are so agitated. Rider has an entire major, minor, and club dedicated to graphic design, as well as multiple student organizations that are able to put time and effort into making their own advertisements. For students who are spending their time and money to develop their skills, Rider turning to AI instead of offering them opportunities can be frustrating.

This also raises concerns about Rider’s standards, as well as their stance on AI. Rider allows for professors to decide if AI is allowed in their courses, rather than establishing a rule on whether AI is allowed or not. While there is some variation depending on the class, a large number of professors have prohibited the use of AI, citing concerns of plagiarism.

This situation has set a horrible example by not only disregarding the talent of their own students and showing that AI can be used to replace them, but by creating a double standard regarding where AI is acceptable to use.

-Brielle Engelhardt