Academic Integrity and Generative AI
What is the university's policy on the use of generative AI?
The university empowers instructors to establish their own policies on the use of generative AI in the classroom, within the guidelines of the Honor Code.课程规则优先Instructor override It is the instructor’s responsibility to determine how or if students may use these tools and to communicate expectations clearly.
If an instructor does not provide a statement on the use of generative AI tools, then the university permits students to use generative AI tools, but they must disclose all generative AI usage.默认规则Default rule披露要求Disclosure
Guidance asks instructors to make clear:
- whether generative AI is allowed;
- whether it may be used for brainstorming, proofreading, or composing text;分级许可Tiered scale
- what constitutes appropriate, ethical use and academic misconduct;
- what confidentiality and privacy rules apply;数据与隐私Data & privacy
- how students must disclose and/or cite AI use;
- that students remain responsible for AI-generated content; and
- whether expectations differ across assignments.
Detection and fair process
There are currently no foolproof methods for detecting the use of generative AI. Vanderbilt notes that traditional plagiarism checkers are not reliable sources of generative AI detection and that publicly available AI-detection tools may compromise student privacy protections.
The university highlights several limitations:
- unknown privacy and data-usage policies may put FERPA-protected information at risk;
- tools often lack public, detailed methodologies and standards;
- early studies suggest bias against non-native English speakers.
Current guidelines indicate that a report to the Undergraduate Honor Council cannot be based solely on an artificial intelligence detector score.检测器证据Detector evidence When examining a suspected violation, relevant factors may include assignment instructions, syllabus policies, comparisons with the student’s work in that course, instructor analysis, and student and instructor testimony.违规定性Integrity framing AI-detection scores generally are not considered.
Generative AI FAQ: accuracy and human responsibility
Generative AI tools generate content, not facts, and there is no distinction between the two inside of most current tools. As such, when using these tools, you will always want to check the output for errors.核实责任Verification duty
The university recommends approaching these tools as “Augmented Intelligence,” rather than as an artificial substitute for human reasoning. AI should augment and amplify a person’s creativity and reasoning rather than diminish the person’s unique contribution.学习理由Learning rationale摘录Excerpt
以下为整理者所写的高中适用要点，非该校原文，不作为任何条款的依据。Below: the collector’s notes on application to high school — not the university’s text, and not used as evidence for any provision.
High-school adaptation takeaways
- Teachers should state the AI rule clearly for every course and any assignment that differs from the default.
- If a school adopts a default-allowed rule, all AI use should still be disclosed; alternatively, a high school may choose a stricter default because minors need clearer boundaries.
- Do not treat an AI-detector score as proof of misconduct.
- Investigations should consider assignment instructions, drafts, the student’s course work, and a conversation with the student.
- AI should augment—not substitute for—student reasoning, and students must check outputs for errors.