A Berkeley Law School AI policy—prohibiting use of AI to conceptualize, draft, revise, translate, or edit work submitted for credit—has sparked renewed debate over feasibility and enforcement in academic writing. The policy also restricts grammar correction and warns that citations to non-existent sources may trigger a presumption of prohibited AI use. The policy’s attention intensified after Joshua Gellers, a dean and AI scholar at the University of North Florida, called it “the worst AI policy in higher education.” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of Berkeley Law, is reported as explaining that he has heard other deans using Berkeley’s policy as a template, including for their own AI rules. The story also connects the policy debate to campus governance tensions around speech and inclusion, reflecting how AI rules are increasingly entangled with broader academic freedom and campus climate issues. For higher education leaders and faculty governance groups, the immediate stakes are how policy language will be interpreted, communicated, and enforced—especially in research-heavy legal writing where citation accuracy is central.