Stockton's "The Lady, or the Tiger?" is exactly the kind of text that generative AI can discuss fluently, because it has been analyzed thousands of times online. Students can ask a chatbot to argue for either door and receive a polished essay in seconds. Teachers therefore need a clear policy and assignment design that keeps the learning goals intact.

A good policy starts with clarity about what is and is not allowed. Some teachers permit AI for brainstorming but not for drafting, while others ban it entirely for graded writing. Whatever the choice, students should hear the rules in plain language and see them in writing, because ambiguity invites accidental violations.

It also helps to explain the reasoning behind the policy. Telling students that the purpose of the essay is to practice building an argument from evidence makes the case that outsourcing the thinking defeats the point. Students are more likely to respect rules they understand than rules that feel arbitrary.

Design assignments that are harder to outsource

Assignments that rely on in-class discussion, personal annotation, or specific classroom activities are harder for AI to replicate. Asking students to reference a moment from the class seminar or to include their own annotated notes ties the essay to authentic work. In-class drafting for at least part of the process also provides a baseline of each student's writing voice.

• Require annotated copies of the text as part of the submission.
• Ask students to reference a specific point from class discussion.
• Collect a short in-class writing sample to establish each student's voice.
• Include a brief reflection on how the argument evolved during drafting.
• Use staged submissions such as outline, draft, and revision.

Be cautious with AI detection tools

AI detectors are known to produce false positives, and accusing a student on the basis of an unreliable score can cause real harm. Detector results should never be treated as proof, particularly for students who write in a formal or simple style. Conversations with students about their process are a far more reliable way to understand what happened.

If you suspect misuse, ask the student to explain their argument and point to where in the story their evidence comes from. A student who wrote the essay can usually do this easily, while one who did not often struggles. This approach respects the student while still addressing the concern.

Distinguish between misuse and legitimate support

Not all AI use is equivalent, and policies work better when they recognize this. Using AI to understand a difficult word in Stockton's text differs from asking it to write a thesis. Defining categories of use, such as comprehension support, brainstorming, and drafting, gives students a clearer framework for what is acceptable.

Some teachers invite students to disclose any AI use and describe how they used it. This transparency builds trust and gives teachers insight into how students are interacting with the tools. It also normalizes honest discussion rather than driving AI use underground.

Grade for the thinking you want to see

Rubrics that reward specific, text-based reasoning make generic AI output less competitive. A smooth essay that makes broad claims about the princess without citing precise details will score poorly against a rubric that demands accurate, specific evidence. Aligning grading criteria with authentic engagement naturally discourages shortcuts.

Efficient grading tools can help teachers apply these rubrics consistently, flagging essays where evidence is vague or reasoning is thin. This allows more time for conversations about process and authorship. Combined with thoughtful assignment design, such tools support academic integrity without relying on unreliable detection.