Teaching a class that already assumes AI is fine
The policy doesn’t have to change. The argument for it does.
Skip the argument that assumes they agree with you
“AI is cheating” lands differently with a student who uses a chatbot the way an earlier generation used a calculator or spell-check. Starting from a shared assumption you don’t actually share talks past the class before you’ve made a single point.
Make the case about the assignment’s actual purpose
Most AI-assistance rules exist to protect a specific skill the assignment is meant to build — drafting an argument, working through a proof, finding your own structure. Naming that purpose directly is a more persuasive case than an appeal to rules for their own sake.
Distinguish the tool from the shortcut
Most students already draw an intuitive line between “I used this to understand the topic” and “I used this to skip understanding the topic.” Building your policy around that same distinction, rather than a blanket rule, tends to get less resistance because it matches how students already think about it.
Expect the policy to need revisiting
What counts as reasonable assistance in a given field is still moving. A policy you’re proud of this term is worth reopening next term, not treated as settled.