Campus History — Part 1: AI Draft and Critique

This is Part 1 of a two-part project. Here you generate an AI history of a UNM topic and write a short critique of it. Your critique becomes the basis for a class discussion — and the notes you take here go with you to the archive for Part 2.

Skills you are practicing

Source criticism — evaluating a source by asking: who made it, for whom, in what context, and what does it leave out? You’ll do this every time you encounter a historical claim in a news article, a political speech, or an AI summary.
Reading for absence — noticing not just what a source says but what it doesn’t say, and asking why. A confident-sounding account with no admission of gaps or uncertainty is a serious red flag.

Step 1: Pick a topic

Choose something about UNM’s past that genuinely interests you:

A campus building (see the list of UNM buildings)
A student organization, protest, or cultural event
A person associated with UNM’s history
A campus space or tradition whose origins you’ve wondered about

Add your name and topic to our UNM Campus History Index so we don’t duplicate topics.

Step 2: Generate an AI history

Use an AI tool (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar) to generate a ~500-word history of your topic. Give it a specific prompt:

“Write a short history of [your topic] at the University of New Mexico. Include specific dates, events, people, and sources where possible.”

Save the full AI response without editing it. This is your baseline document. You’ll compare it against the archive in Part 2.

Step 3: Read it critically

Before writing anything, read the AI draft carefully with a skeptical eye. Take notes on:

What specific claims does it make — dates, names, events, causes?
What sources does it cite, if any? Do they look like real, verifiable sources?
What seems plausible and specific? What seems vague, generic, or suspiciously confident?
What questions does it raise that it doesn’t answer?
What would you want to verify before trusting this account?

You don’t need to verify anything yet. Just read carefully and notice.

Step 4: Write your critique

Write 3–5 sentences evaluating the AI draft. Be specific — don’t just say “it seemed accurate” or “it made things up.” Quote at least one passage that seems reasonably reliable and one that seems suspicious or thin, and explain your reasoning for each.

This critique is short, but it’s the heart of this assignment. It’s asking you to do what historians always do: read a source critically before deciding how much to trust it.

What I’m looking for

This is a short assignment graded on engagement and honesty, not on whether the AI draft is “accurate”. What makes a strong critique:

You quote specific lines from the AI draft — not just “it seemed vague” or “it made things up”
You identify at least one claim that seems checkable and at least one that seems impossible to verify without specialized knowledge
Your thinking is genuine even if uncertain: “I’m not sure if this is accurate but here’s why it feels suspicious” is an excellent observation
You recognize the vagueness. Could what is said about your topic apply to just about any other one with some words swapped out?

There is no wrong answer here. What matters is the quality of your attention to the AI response.

A — quotes specific lines; distinguishes between claims that are checkable and ones that can’t be verified without specialist knowledge; reasoning is genuine even when uncertain
B — specific examples; some analytical depth beyond surface impressions
C — addresses the prompt but stays general; examples are thin or paraphrased rather than quoted
D — vague summary with no textual evidence from the AI draft
F — minimal effort or missing a component

Submit

Post both to the discussion board before class:

Your AI-generated draft (paste it in, unedited)
Your 5–8 sentence critique

We’ll use these in class discussion before you go to the archive. Bring your notes — especially your list of specific claims to verify — to your CSWR visit for Part 2.