Course syllabi set the tone and expectations for courses, shaping the
learning experience for both students and instructors. In computing courses,
especially those addressing fairness and ethics in artificial intelligence
(AI), machine learning (ML), and algorithmic design, it is imperative that we
understand how approaches to navigating barriers to fair outcomes are being
addressed.These expectations should be inclusive, transparent, and grounded in
promoting critical thinking. Syllabus analysis offers a way to evaluate the
coverage, depth, practices, and expectations within a course. Manual syllabus
evaluation, however, is time-consuming and prone to inconsistency. To address
this, we developed a justice-oriented scoring rubric and asked a large language
model (LLM) to review syllabi through a multi-perspective role simulation.
Using this rubric, we evaluated 24 syllabi from four perspectives: instructor,
departmental chair, institutional reviewer, and external evaluator. We also
prompted the LLM to identify thematic trends across the courses. Findings show
that multiperspective evaluation aids us in noting nuanced, role-specific
priorities, leveraging them to fill hidden gaps in curricula design of AI/ML
and related computing courses focused on fairness and ethics. These insights
offer concrete directions for improving the design and delivery of fairness,
ethics, and justice content in such courses.