mckenzie-2026-AI-shattering-gatekeeping
Mckenzie, R. (2026) ‘AI shatters the pretence that academic polish was ever anything but gatekeeping’, Wonkhe. Available at: https://wonkhe.com/blogs/ai-shatters-the-pretence-that-academic-polish-was-ever-anything-but-gatekeeping/ (Accessed: 9 February 2026).
‘gatekeeping masquerading as pedagogy’
‘The traditional model fuses the what (idea) and the how (writing). Assessment unconsciously rewards code-fluency over intellectual originality. This systematically disadvantages anyone not already socialised into academic register: working-class students, first generation students, non-native speakers, those from non-Western educational traditions.’
this article points out the fact that academic journals/publishers have started to move to more accepting stance on AI whereas academia is still actively fighting it. McKenzie argues this is due to systemic gatekeeping in academia.
This speaks to thoughts that I have been having but have not yet fully articulated around LLMs disrupting formalities and LLM-threatening-education-systems-status-quo regarding the way that academic achievements have historically been assessed, which is through the ‘polish’ and using an ‘academic register’ - ie. speaking the language of the academy. He argues that generative AI now offers a ‘free’ version of what wealthier students have always gotten, which is extra support to match up to and pass the acceptable standard of academic outputs. Generating ‘polish’ should not be inherently wrong if you can show and demonstrate your thinking. This reminds me of bell hooks chapter in language in hooks-1994-teaching-to-trangress and the quote ‘this is the oppressor’s language yet I need it to talk to you’.
McKenzie challenges the idea that writing and idea development are interconnected saying that it ‘privileges a specific type of complexity’ that aligns with western academic traditions. I respect and understand this point, but do to some point disagree here as writing is helpful I think in an ideation process and the use of genAI is having effects on cognition [papers/reference?] but what I do think is unnecessary (and increasingly so with how generative AI is changing things) is the requirement to always be writing in super polished and legible ways, if you assume that the use of genAI for polish will be continuing. Ultimately he argues for a ‘idea-centric model that assesses intellectual substance separately from its expression in academic register’. This is something that I agree with and underscores my interest in a focus-on-process, but additionally there may be other ways to more accurately assess this.
‘The university’s insistence that writing and thinking are inseparable is not a pedagogical truth, it is epistemological imperialism that has mistaken the technology of one culture for universal human cognition’
I believe that there are alternative ways to move and that academia needs to be able to acknowledge that there may be other ways to produce equally innovative works even if using genAI for support.