Guardrails, Literacy, or Silence? Social Work Educators Deliberate AI and the EPAS

The debate over artificial intelligence in social work classrooms reflects competing interpretations of CSWE competencies rather than divergence from them. While critics emphasize the risk AI poses to ethical development, relational practice, and anti‑oppressive pedagogy, proponents contend that ethical, justice‑oriented engagement with AI is necessary to fulfill CSWE’s mandate for competent, technologically literate practitioners. This tension underscores the need for intentional, competency‑aligned pedagogy rather than blanket adoption or prohibition. Because EPAS explicitly requires ethical technology use, anti-racist practice, and professional judgment, AI adoption is not a neutral pedagogical choice but a competency-relevant issue.

In order to model the very competencies EPAS expects (ethical reasoning, anti-oppressive dialogue, policy practice), the workshop facilitator will rely on techniques that make room for ethical discomfort, prevents dominance, and honors professional values and evidence. The session will open with a deliberative dialogue setup for the purpose and norms establishment phase, and participants will be provided a prepared 1-page evidence brief they may refer to in their small groups. Participants will then be placed into pairs for a structured academic controversy process whereby each pair is assigned a pro or con perspective (regardless of personal belief). They will prepare arguments, then exchange and restate the arguments with the opposing perspective pair, followed by a brief synthesis discussion. Next, the nominal group technique will be employed to reach consensus on group recommendations regarding 2029 EPAS language regarding AI.

With discussions ongoing regarding the place of AI in social work education, it is imperative to determine what specific language, requirements, or guardrails should appear in the 2029 EPAS regarding AI. If referenced, should AI appear as an ethical risk area, a critical literacy requirement, or a prohibited or restricted practice domain? What protections are needed to prevent tokenistic, inequitable, or harmful curricular implementation? How can EPAS language preserve social work’s human-centered, anti-oppressive identity? Through workshop dialogue, social work educators can explore this topic quickly, develop a clear understanding of the AI controversy, and translate their ideas into proposed EPAS language that will be shared with CSWE policy makers.