Civics & Government: Student Democracy in the Age of AI Prohibition and AI Push
This page documents civic actions by students learning with AI at R.L. Paschal High School, Tarrant County College, and Texas Christian University, alongside participants in the Lakota AI Code Camp, between November 2022-2025. Their experiences were anonymized in classroom documentation to protect students navigating conflicting institutional policies while pioneering educational AI use.
The Governance Landscape Students Navigated While Learning AI
Institutional Policies (2022-2024)
Institution
AI Policy
Consequence for AI Learning
Paschal HS
"Plagiarism (copying work from the Internet, including but not limited to using Artificial Intelligence)"
Zero grade, suspension possible
FWISD
"Academic dishonesty, including... use of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) to complete assignments"
Disciplinary action
TCU
"Unauthorized use of artificial intelligence as a form of academic misconduct"
Academic penalties
TCC
Faculty discretion per class
Varies
Lakota Camp
Community sovereignty model
Self-governance
State and Federal Laws Affecting AI Access
Texas House Bill 1481 (Effective June 2025):
Prohibits personal communication devices (phones, tablets, smartwatches) on school property during school day
Requires secure storage or complete ban of devices
Result: Blocks primary means of AI access for students
State funding: $20 million for storage solutions to enforce the ban
Texas H.B. 149 - Responsible AI Governance Act (Effective January 2026):
Prohibits AI systems that "intentionally aim to incite self-harm" or "engage in criminal activity"
Bans government "social scoring" using AI
Creates regulatory sandbox for testing AI innovations
Establishes Texas Artificial Intelligence Council
South Dakota S.B. 164 (2025):
Federal Executive Orders (Trump Administration 2025):
"Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth" (April 2025)
"Removing Barriers to American Leadership in AI" (January 2025)
Creates White House Task Force on AI Education
Student AI Learning as Democratic Practice
1. Civil Disobedience Through AI Documentation
Multiple Barriers, Persistent Learning (November 2022 onward):
Students faced multiple walls of prohibition:
School rules explicitly banned AI as academic dishonesty
District technology blocked AI sites on school devices
State law (HB 1481) banned personal devices that could access AI
State funding ($20 million) allocated to enforce device bans
Student Response: They used AI anyway—to write, translate, research, explore, and create literary representations.
The Critical Choice: Rather than hide their prohibited AI use, students documented it publicly. Some gave permission for their experiences to be published in an anonymized book (written under a pseudonym at students' request).
Why This Matters:
Students didn't accidentally violate policy—they consciously chose to learn
They didn't secretly cheat—they openly documented
They didn't wait for permission—they requested publication of their experiences
They persisted despite the state spending millions to prevent their access
AI Learning Principle: When multiple levels of government prohibit learning tools and fund enforcement, transparent documentation becomes an act of educational civil disobedience.
Result: What institutions called "academic dishonesty" became:
Published evidence of AI's educational potential
Documentation of algorithmic bias
A permanent record that students were right about AI's importance
The Ultimate Irony: The students who requested the book documenting their "violations" were proven correct when federal Executive Orders in 2025 mandated exactly what they'd been punished for attempting in 2022. Texas simultaneously spent $20 million to facilitate banning devices while the federal government promoted AI education.
2. The Script Rebellion: Rejecting AI While Learning With It
The Torn Pages (Spring 2023): Seven students had used ChatGPT to generate scripts for their presentation. Standing before their class with these AI-generated pages, they declared: "This isn't ours," then ripped them to pieces.
AI Learning Principle: Students learning with AI can simultaneously reject its inappropriate use.
Governance Implication: Students exercised sovereignty over their own AI learning, choosing authenticity over efficiency even when both using and rejecting AI were technically violations of policy.
3. Advocacy for Institutional Change Through AI Learning
Land Acknowledgment Campaign Sparked by AI Bias Discovery (2023-2025):
While learning about AI bias in their classes, students discovered how AI systems erase Indigenous realities (the bearded grandmother being one example). They learned from Michael Running Wolf that "Data is land" and saw how AI language models poorly represent Indigenous languages.
The Direct Connection: Their AI learning revealed systematic erasure. Students asked: How can we study AI on Indigenous land while using AI that erases Indigenous people?
Student Action: Armed with knowledge from their AI studies about representation bias, students—both Indigenous and non-Indigenous—advocated for their school to adopt a land acknowledgment including written Wichita language.
From documentation: "Students understood this as a beginning, not an ending."
Civic Achievement: Students applied AI bias lessons directly to institutional policy. The Land Acknowledgment wasn't separate from their AI learning—it was because of it.
4. Creating Alternative AI Governance: Lakota AI Code Camp
Data Sovereignty Through AI Education: While Texas funded device bans, the Lakota Camp created a space where Indigenous students built AI to preserve languages.
Participant Niesha Marshall (after creating her first AI): "I couldn't believe it, that I created this AI."
Governance Model:
No written prohibitions
Community controls data and learning
Culture guides AI development
Donations fund education, not device storage
The Democratic Paradox of AI Learning
Students learning with AI faced an extraordinary situation:
Institutional Reality:
Using AI to learn = academic dishonesty
District devices blocked AI access
State law banned devices that could reach AI
State allocated $20 million to enforce device bans
Students faced zeros, suspension for AI exploration
No student voice in AI policy creation
Educational Imperative:
Federal orders promoting youth AI education
State investment in AI innovation (while banning access)
Industry demanding AI literacy
Colleges expecting AI competency
Student Response to AI Governance: Rather than comply with AI prohibitions or secretly violate them, students learning with AI:
Documented AI violations publicly (making bias visible)
Rejected AI collectively while learning from it (torn scripts)
Created alternative AI spaces (Lakota Camp)
Applied AI lessons to advocacy (Land Acknowledgments)
The Policy Contradiction Timeline
Date
Policy Action
Effect on Students
Nov 2022
Students begin AI learning
Violating existing rules
2022-2024
Students document AI use
Building evidence
June 2025
TX HB 1481 bans devices
Blocks AI access
July 2025
TX allocates $20M for storage
Funds enforcement
April 2025
Federal order promotes AI education
Contradicts state bans
Sept 2025
Device ban deadline
Students lose access
Jan 2026
TX AI Governance Act
Creates "sandbox" after banning tools
AI Governance Lessons from Student Learning
Financial Priorities Reveal Values
Texas spent:
$20 million on storage solutions to ban devices ($12.50 per student: For 65% of students in grades 9-12)
$0 on AI education tools for students
Unknown amounts on blocking software
Meanwhile, students:
The Irony of Simultaneous Promotion and Prohibition
In 2025, Texas:
Banned devices that access AI (HB 1481)
Created an AI regulatory sandbox (HB 149)
Funded device storage, not AI education
Expected students to be "AI-ready" without access
The federal government simultaneously:
Promoted AI education for youth
Created AI task forces
Removed barriers to AI leadership
While states blocked access
Reflection: AI Democracy in Practice
Traditional civics teaches: Citizens influence government through voting, petitions, and lawful advocacy.
These AI learners demonstrated: When institutions fail to adapt to AI, citizens—even teenage ones—can:
Create parallel AI governance (Lakota Camp)
Document AI failures despite state-funded prohibition
Exercise sovereignty over AI use (torn scripts)
Force institutional change through AI learning (Land Acknowledgments)
Texas HB 1481 allocates $20 million to store devices that could access AI. The Lakota AI Code Camp operates on donations. Which model produced AI-literate students? Which model preserved Indigenous languages? Which model prepared students for the future?
The Texas Responsible AI Governance Act creates a "regulatory sandbox" for testing AI innovations. These students created their own AI sandbox two years earlier—not through legislation, but through brave experimentation with tools the state spent millions trying to ban.
The Ultimate AI Governance Lesson: Democracy in the AI age isn't waiting for permission to learn with AI. It's students using prohibited AI tools despite school rules, district blocks, state laws, and $20 million in enforcement funding—then documenting their learning publicly.
When the Paschal Honor Code required a reflection letter about "making better choices" after AI use, these students had already made the best choice: They chose AI learning over compliance, AI documentation over silence, and collective AI exploration over individual safety.
That's not academic dishonesty. That's AI democracy.
The Disconnect: Students Ready, Institutions Not
By 2024, these students had:
Documented AI bias
Established ethical AI use principles
Created sovereign AI learning spaces
Applied AI knowledge to institutional advocacy
Requested publication of their experiences
Meanwhile, their state was:
Spending $20 million to ban devices
Debating whether AI use constituted cheating
Creating "sandboxes" while blocking access
Funding storage instead of education
The students learning with AI since November 2022 weren't just ahead of their schools—they were ahead of state and federal policy. Their civic action wasn't rebellion; it was leadership.
Texas House Bill 1481 Implementation Guidelines (TEA, July 2025)
Paschal High School Honor Code (2022-2024)
Fort Worth ISD Student Code of Conduct
Texas H.B. 149 - Responsible AI Governance Act (2026)
South Dakota S.B. 164 - Deepfake Election Law (2025)
Federal Executive Orders on AI Education (2025)
Classroom AI learning documentation (anonymized, 2022-2024)
Lakota AI Code Camp materials
Institutional AI policies (TCU, TCC, FWISD)
Student actions described here represent AI learning experiences documented in real-time but anonymized to protect individuals who were, by institutional definition, violating academic policies while advancing AI education innovation. Their courage in learning with AI despite multiple prohibitions and millions in enforcement funding deserves recognition without retribution. The students themselves requested documentation of their experiences, understanding their historical significance in the face of unprecedented technological governance contradictions.