Maintaining Momentum: How to Prepare for AI Skeptics Without Dismissing Their Concerns
A reflection from the ATD Dream Conference
At this year's Achieving the Dream conference, I found myself in a session that crystallized something I've been thinking about for months. Dr. Tom Broxson, Vice President of Instruction at Clover Park Technical College, was sharing how his institution reframed AI as an equity tool, a way to give first-generation students the same late-night support that their more privileged peers get at home. Then came a question from the audience about environmental impact.
The room shifted. Here was a legitimate concern, thoughtfully raised. And I watched as it nearly shifted the energy of the robust discussion prior.
A Pattern Worth Naming
I've spent over a decade developing and supporting faculty with adopting emerging technology, and I've seen this pattern before. A promising conversation gains traction, someone raises a valid concern, and suddenly the window for forward movement closes. It's not that the concerns aren't legitimate; they usually are. It's that without preparation, we can lose precious time we won't get back.
As Audrey Ellis, Founder of T3, reminded me in our debrief: skeptics are usually right. They surface risks we haven't considered. They name the harms that optimists gloss over. The question isn't whether to engage them, it's whether we're ready to engage them well.
What I Learned from Leaders Who've Done This Well
Dr. Randy VanWagoner, President of Mohawk Valley Community College, offered a deceptively simple approach: seek to understand, not to convince. He described identifying faculty members who have deep reservations about AI:
“taking them to lunch and having a set of questions where I’m really trying to seek to understand and not convince.”
This reframing struck me. It's not about winning people over, it's about genuinely learning what you might be missing. When you understand the specific fears and values driving hesitation, you can address them directly rather than talking past each other.
Dr. Broxson's response to the environmental question modeled this well. A former geography and environmental science professor himself, he acknowledged the concern's legitimacy, then reframed the stakes:
“ We would be doing double harm to our already disenfranchised students if we aren’t trying to enter into this race.”
He didn't dismiss the argument, he situated it within a broader equity calculation.
Clover Park Technical College didn’t start with AI, they started with professional development infrastructure, equity analysis, and a culture of faculty engagement. When AI tools arrived, they had the foundation to respond thoughtfully. Their framework gives faculty clear guidance using a “stoplight model” for assignments: green for AI-encouraged use, yellow for limited use, red for no AI. This transparency preempts the “but what about academic integrity?” objection by building the answer into the pedagogy.
Preparing Before the Meeting
The most practical takeaway from these conversations was this: preparation creates space for productive dialogue. If you walk into a faculty meeting having already anticipated likely concerns, you can engage them thoughtfully rather than reactively.
Here's a prompt template we've been refining for institutional leaders preparing for AI stakeholder meetings:
I'm preparing for a [meeting type] with [stakeholder group] about [AI initiative]. The attendees include [brief description of roles and likely perspectives]. Based on common concerns in higher education AI adoption, help me:
Identify the 3-4 most likely objections this group will raise
For each objection, provide: the legitimate concern underlying it, a brief acknowledgment that validates the concern, and a response that addresses it while maintaining forward momentum
Suggest one question I can ask that demonstrates I'm genuinely interested in their perspective
Suggest one follow-up action I can commit to after the meeting that shows this work isn’t performative (e.g., a specific piece of research to do, a stakeholder to consult, or a decision/input to bring back to the group)
The key are the final two elements. Stakeholders can tell when you're going through the motions versus when you actually want to understand their position. As Dr. VanWagoner noted, the primary object should be to understand their perspective rather than convince them of yours and to take action once you’ve processed what you’ve heard.
Moving Forward Together
What gives me hope is that I've watched skepticism shift over time. Faculty members who initially resisted new approaches often become the most thoughtful adopters once they feel heard and see how innovation aligns with their values. The goal isn't to rush past concerns, it's to create enough shared understanding that progress becomes possible.
Sometimes that means acknowledging that a particular concern deserves more attention than a single meeting allows and scheduling a dedicated space for that conversation. A lunch-and-learn for the philosophical questions. A working group for the policy implications.
When we prepare well, we honor both the urgency of the moment and the people navigating it with us.
Geneva Dampare, MSOD, is Program Manager, Student Success & Systems Change at T3 Advisory. She has over 15 years of experience driving equitable learner success through technology initiatives in higher education.
T3 Advisory partners with institutions navigating complex change—including AI strategy and adoption. If your team is working to maintain momentum while honoring legitimate concerns, we can help you develop the frameworks and facilitation approaches that keep conversations productive. Ready to move forward together? Let's talk.
This content originally appeared on Linkedin.