My State Senator, Democrat, David Niezgodski, recently showcased a very new upbeat writing style.
On June 11, 2026 Niezgodski published a Guest Column piece in the South Bend Tribune, “Look at what we’re building together.” While the piece originally appeared in the South Bend Tribune, you can read it for free here (unless he and his team take it down since it does not seem that they have permission to republish something from the Tribune, which would normally be something to note, but not in every case).
As someone who studied how people write, it’s been a hobby for me to try to note the author of a piece from the writing itself. Sometimes, the language of an era gives away who the author might be in certain circumstances. In other instances, there are rhythmic tells that come through in punctuation, as is the case with the use of the semicolon in the writings of Thomas Jefferson and the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; however, cadence does not always tell the whole story, as some authors change tone for particular circumstances. As was often the case for authors who had to write under assumed names for fear of reprisal and/or because of race and gender issues at particular moments in history, they also worked to hide some of their personal writing habits to further obfuscate their identities. It is not unusual for people to get better at writing over time. It is also fairly common for writers to pick up stylistic changes, pithy phrasing, and more from things they’re reading. For politicians, it is unusual for tone and style to shift dramatically and suddenly unless they get new staffers who help with their writing and editing, or there is another dramatic shift.
Some of those dramatic shifts changed writing, such as spell-check, synonym finder, and some of the grammar software. As those new technologies rolled into mainstream society, teachers easily spotted papers that utilized those enhancements, as the strong educator came to know their students’ writing and the interventions they and their students worked on to improve it. Detecting AI will be equally easy for teachers with many writing assignments that are authentic assessments conducted live and in person without technological assistance. Those educators who don’t have opportunities to regularly read their assignments, short and long, may be at a disadvantage.
While working with high school students last year at one of the ‘top’ programs in our region, I encountered a student who was a gifted writer (and whose parent also writes well) and was seeking admission to an elite Catholic institution. Due to time constraints and life pressures, the student tried to pass something by me that was clearly AI-generated. In talking with other teachers, I learned that this student had done the same in their junior year. I attempted to work with the student to find a way around the issue, but other complicating factors emerged along the way, and I’m not sure the appropriate lesson came through from me, the school corporation, or the college admissions process. This was not the only incident of AI use I caught and worked to remediate, and I was better at this than others because I constantly read and gave feedback to the students, thus quickly coming to know their writing.
The high school students I taught 30 years ago would tell you that I was good at detecting when their writing was not their own. My college students would tell you the same, although there I more often detected life problems in changes in their writing, research, or tone. This is something that those who read others’ works can often discern.
I care about process, and I also believe people can and do change.
I know people who turn their lives around by stopping a habit that was not helpful to them. I know people who get better by changing elements of their lives or breaking free of the bounds of addiction. I’ve seen people repent for real, find the Church, and transform their lives. I firmly believe that with a growth mindset, people can learn new things and improve. That said, it usually is a process.
I hope that something dramatic has shifted in the life of our State Senator David Niezgodski, or that he has enrolled in one of our state’s underfunded writing programs. I hope that he, like so many cheaters in the world, has not taken the easy path and allowed AI to speak for him without attributing that in his recent piece. It would be a bad example for school kids and others if he pawned off a piece of his writing as his own, instead of just saying AI was heavily used to write it and that he fully endorses the final product or something of that sort.
People who take shortcuts or cheat in life, marriage, or on the career ladder can change. However, it is so rare that when it happens, we often tell their story in novels, on television, and in film. Usually, cheaters don’t believe in processes, believe they are smarter than everyone else, and deflect responsibility through threats, intimidation, name-calling, and bullying.
If our politicians are using AI to speak to us, we should know it. If they’re using AI to draft legislation or do their research, we should know that too. And, if they think they can just pass AI off to the rest of us, we should not expect anything different from our students in high school and college.
The singularity is not yet upon us. Until it is, work to do your own thinking, crafting, and writing.
© 2026 Brian S Collier. All opinions are those of the author. The author reserves all Rights and copyrights. To request permission to reprint any or all of this article, contact info@redresssouthbend.com.
Reprinted with permission of the author by Redress South Bend.
All opinions, research, and views in this piece are attributed to the author and are not necessarily the thoughts or opinions of Redress South Bend.
