By Dr. Aviva Legatt
AI is no longer a future issue boards can monitor from a distance. It is a live governance responsibility surfacing in accessibility enforcement, accreditation reviews, and federal funding conversations.
In my work with boards, presidents, and AI councils over the last two years, I've seen a clear shift: AI is no longer a future issue you can monitor from a distance. It is a live governance responsibility that is beginning to surface in accessibility enforcement, accreditation reviews, and federal funding conversations.
There are three clocks that support institutions to focus on that responsibility:
1. Accessibility: A Fixed Compliance Date
The Department of Justice's final Title II web and mobile rule requires state and local governments, including public universities, to bring websites and apps into alignment with WCAG 2.1 AA, with enforcement beginning April 24, 2026, for larger entities.
Any AI-enabled system that lives on your public web or mobile footprint sits inside that obligation. Boards need a clear, time-bound plan that identifies which AI tools are student-facing, their current accessibility status, and how they will reach WCAG 2.1 AA before the deadline.
2. Accreditation: A Continuous Evidence Expectation
In October 2025, the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC) confirmed that AI can support learning evaluation when institutions can demonstrate transparency, human accountability, and protections against bias. CHEA's Guiding Principles for Artificial Intelligence in Accreditation and Recognition add further expectations: Documented human oversight, equity, privacy, and reliability in how AI is used.
Taken together, these statements turn every self-study and reaffirmation from 2026 onward into an AI governance review. Admissions, transfer credit, advising, and assessment processes now need written explanations of where AI is used, how people remain accountable for decisions, and what evidence demonstrates fairness and reliability. When those explanations exist in well-structured documents, accreditors see intentional practice rather than improvised