AI Policy Suggestions
The following table is a sample of how colleges and universities in the United States present their stance on the use of artificial intelligence. A common concept noted is academic freedom. Higher education promotes the autonomy of its instructors to teach in the manner they see fit. It is important to note that academic freedom has its limits that defer to the general laws of society (Britannica, 2024). In terms of AI, instructors have the latitude to determine where their course sits on the continuum of prohibition and permission. The majority of schools offer sample syllabi statements to guide faculty in communicating the rules and regulation of AI use to students.
Another commonality is that the use of AI without permission is considered a breach of academic integrity and is subjected to disciplinary action. The current state of AI is that it remains virtually undetectable, and schools generally discourage the use of AI detection applications due to the high prevalence of false positives. Therefore, this caveat (limitation?) is the main source of complexity and begs the question, how can an instructor prohibit the use of AI when there is no definitive way to discover its use within an assignment?
Statements that expressly prohibit the use of AI seem to be untenable at this time and may induce fear that could impair the integrity of the instructor-student relationship. Arousing alarm does not change the reality that AI remains indiscernible, therefore, statements prohibiting it are neither viable nor recommended. Instead, best practices are evolving to guide instructors to move away from prohibition until AI detection programs become a reliable way to detect its use.
| Institution | Type | Excerpts & Notes | Link to full policy/statement |
|---|---|---|---|
| SUNY Binghamton | Website Statement from Center for Learning and Teaching | Offers sample syllabi statements for prohibition or permission of AI use.
The use of generative AI tools or apps for assignments in this course, including tools like ChatGPT and other AI writing or coding assistants, is prohibited. |
SUNY Binghamton Generative Artificial Intelligence in Higher Education |
| SUNY Buffalo | Website Statement to students from the University at Buffalo | UB has no single rule about using AI. Every instructor has the academic freedom to decide if/when these technologies are permissible in their class. Please consult them and/or your syllabus, and never assume that it is allowed. If your professor doesn’t say anything, don’t use it. | University at Buffalo Artificial Intelligence (the other AI) |
| SUNY Geneseo | Website Statement from the Teaching and Learning Center | Offers sample syllabi statements for prohibition or permission of AI use.
Any work written, developed, or created, in whole or in part, by generative artificial intelligence (AI) is considered plagiarism and will not be tolerated. |
Geneseo Resources on Generative AI in the Classroom |
| SUNY Oneonta | Website Statement from Faculty Center for Teaching, Learning and Scholarship | Offers sample syllabi statements for prohibition or permission of AI use.
Please prepare and submit your own original work for this course. Do not use generative AI tools to complete any portion of an assignment or examination. Any use of AI tools will be considered plagiarism. |
SUNY Oneonta Faculty Resources: AI Syllabus Policy Examples |
| SUNY Potsdam | Website Statement from College Library | Views plagiarism and ChatGPT as a sliding scale and is explained in ChatGPT, Chatbots and Artificial Intelligence in Education. | Potsdam AI & Plagiarism |
| SUNY Suffolk | Website Statement on Academic Misconduct | Use of AI is listed as an example of plagiarism.
Using material generated by artificial intelligence tools for an assignment without instructor authorization. |
Suffolk County Community College Academic Misconduct Definitions |
| SUNY Stony Brook | Academic Integrity Policy for Division of Undergraduate Education | Use of AI is listed as an example of academic dishonesty.
Representing work generated by artificial intelligence as one’s own work. |
Stony Brook University Academic Integrity Policy/ |
| Cornell University | Website Statement by Center for Teaching Innovation | Offers sample syllabi statements for prohibition or permission of AI use.
To ensure development and mastery of the foundational concepts and skills in this course, the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools is prohibited…please know that appropriate and ethical use of generative AI tools will likely be a part of other courses in your academic program. |
Cornell University AI & Academic Integrity |
| Harvard University | Statement located on Information Technology website | Initial guidelines written by the Provost and Executive leadership:
The University supports responsible experimentation with generative AI tools, but there are important considerations to keep in mind when using these tools, including information security and data privacy, compliance, copyright, and academic integrity. |
Harvard University Initial guidelines for using ChatGPT and other generative AI tools at Harvard |
| The Ohio State | Website statement by Office of Academic Affairs | To maintain a culture of integrity and respect, these generative AI tools should not be used in the completion of course assignments unless an instructor for a given course specifically authorizes their use… these tools should be used only with the explicit and clear permission of each individual instructor, and then only in the ways allowed by the instructor. | The Ohio State University Artificial intelligence and academic integrity |
| University of Pennsylvania | Website statement by Center for Excellence in Teaching, Learning and Innovation | Offers sample syllabi statements for prohibition or permission of AI use.
Faculty can completely forbid students from using it or they can allow certain uses (like using AI to help revise a draft or to generate topics.) |
UPenn Academic Integrity Statements that Address Generative AI/ |
When formulating syllabus statements faculty might want to consider the practicality of prohibiting AI use. While our first instinct might be to ask students to avoid using it, that’s not practical. As Margarete Jadamec of the University at Buffalo points out, “We should be cognizant of whether or not objective standards exist to assess it.“ At this point, the answer would have to be “not”; they do not (yet) exist. David Wolf goes further, “With the growing technological advances, it would be unwise to try to prohibit it” (SUNY Schenectady County Community College).
The SUNY FACT2 Task Group on Optimizing AI in Higher Education offered a webinar in March 2024 on Developing Syllabus Statements on AI Use. The presenters, Meghanne Freivald, Alfred University, and Keith Landa, SUNY Purchase and SUNY System Administration, offered this Syllabus Statement Template, which may serve as a starting point for faculty developing their own syllabus statements.
