Teaching & Learning
- Belmont does not set a single blanket rule for student AI use in graded coursework
- The College of Medicine student handbook separately treats unauthorized AI use as academic misconduct when students submit AI-generated material as their own without faculty authorization
- The university states that faculty should decide and clearly communicate whether AI is permitted, restricted, or prohibited in their courses, and students are expected to follow those course-level directions
Students should understand that AI use in their coursework is governed by the class syllabus or assignment instructions. The instructor may permit, limit, or disallow the use of AI in assignment completion.
Syllabi statements should clearly indicate expectations for AI use in the course and should be discussed in the course overview, module pages, or assignment instructions.
Examples of plagiarism include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Presenting as one’s own another person’s ideas, products, or works; this includes but is not limited to material generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence, if not authorized by the faculty member.
- Belmont indicates that AI use in examinations and assessments is controlled at the instructor and assignment level rather than by a universal exam rule
- Faculty are told to state expectations in syllabi and assignment instructions, and unauthorized AI-generated material may be treated as plagiarism under the College of Medicine handbook
Students should understand that AI use in their coursework is governed by the class syllabus or assignment instructions. The instructor may permit, limit, or disallow the use of AI in assignment completion.
Syllabi statements should clearly indicate expectations for AI use in the course and should be discussed in the course overview, module pages, or assignment instructions.
Examples of plagiarism include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Presenting as one’s own another person’s ideas, products, or works; this includes but is not limited to material generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence, if not authorized by the faculty member.
- Belmont encourages AI use for learning support when it is used to aid understanding rather than replace student thinking
- The policy describes acceptable uses such as brainstorming, tutoring, summarizing, and generating practice questions, but still says course-specific instructor expectations govern student use
As a student, AI tools can be helpful for learning and studying. They can act as a tutor, answer questions, summarize difficult material, explain concepts in another way, create practice quizzes, and more.
Faculty should guide students in the ethical and effective use of AI and help students develop critical thinking skills to evaluate AI outputs.
Students should understand that AI use in their coursework is governed by the class syllabus or assignment instructions. The instructor may permit, limit, or disallow the use of AI in assignment completion.
Examples of Appropriate AI Use
• Brainstorming ideas
• Creating outlines or study questions
• Getting feedback on writing
• Summarizing articles
• Learning concepts through Q&A
- AI use in such coursework falls under the general academic policy, which defers to individual instructor guidelines
- Belmont University does not maintain a specific policy regarding AI use for code generation or programming assignments
Not defined.
Research
- The guidance also warns researchers to avoid entering confidential or sensitive research information into public tools
- Belmont states that scholars and students must follow the AI rules of the journal, publisher, grant sponsor, or disciplinary venue when using AI in research writing
- It allows AI to support drafting-related tasks only with careful human oversight and verification, and it emphasizes that AI systems should not be credited as authors
Faculty and students using AI in scholarly work should comply with the guidelines of their discipline, publisher, journal, or granting agency.
Researchers should verify whether journals or conferences allow AI-assisted writing or editing and should disclose AI use when required.
Do not list AI tools as authors on manuscripts.
Always review, revise, and take responsibility for the final content.
Do not input confidential, proprietary, or personally identifiable research data into public AI tools.
- Belmont allows AI to be used in research workflows only with caution and human verification
- The university specifically warns against placing confidential, proprietary, personally identifiable, or otherwise sensitive research data into public AI tools, and it requires users to review and validate AI-generated outputs before relying on them
Do not input confidential, proprietary, or personally identifiable research data into public AI tools.
Never share sensitive, confidential, FERPA-protected, HIPAA-protected, or proprietary information in public generative AI tools.
Always review and validate AI-generated responses for accuracy and appropriateness before using them.
The user is responsible for fact-checking and using sound judgment before relying on Gen AI responses.
- Belmont requires researchers to follow external sponsor, publisher, and disciplinary rules for AI use in scholarly work and to disclose AI use when those rules require it
- The policy also requires human responsibility for final content and prohibits listing AI as an author, framing AI use as an issue of research integrity and accountability
Faculty and students using AI in scholarly work should comply with the guidelines of their discipline, publisher, journal, or granting agency.
Researchers should verify whether journals or conferences allow AI-assisted writing or editing and should disclose AI use when required.
Do not list AI tools as authors on manuscripts.
Always review, revise, and take responsibility for the final content.
Academic Integrity
- There is no single university-wide citation formula in the provided sources
- Belmont requires transparency about AI use when an instructor, journal, conference, or granting body requires disclosure
- Faculty are encouraged to specify citation and disclosure expectations in course materials, and students may have to acknowledge AI assistance depending on course rules
Syllabi statements should clearly indicate expectations for AI use in the course and should be discussed in the course overview, module pages, or assignment instructions.
Faculty may also provide examples of acceptable disclosures or citations for AI use in student work.
Researchers should verify whether journals or conferences allow AI-assisted writing or editing and should disclose AI use when required.
- Belmont’s provided sources do not establish a university-wide AI detection rule, but they do set enforcement consequences for unauthorized AI use through existing academic integrity processes
- In the College of Medicine handbook, submitting AI-generated material as one’s own without faculty authorization is explicitly classified as plagiarism, which is handled as academic misconduct
Examples of plagiarism include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Presenting as one’s own another person’s ideas, products, or works; this includes but is not limited to material generated in whole or in part by artificial intelligence, if not authorized by the faculty member.
Belmont University School of Medicine expects all students to conduct themselves with honor and integrity in all curricular and non-curricular matters. Failure to do so may result in disciplinary action up to and including dismissal from the School of Medicine.
Institutional & Administrative
- Staff are also directed to use approved tools and avoid sharing sensitive information in public systems
- Belmont permits faculty and staff to use AI for teaching and work-related support, but it requires human oversight and professional judgment
- Faculty are told not to delegate final evaluative responsibilities to AI, to communicate course AI expectations to students, and to review all AI outputs before use
Faculty may use AI tools to assist with idea generation, lesson planning, quiz creation, rubrics, and drafting instructional materials, but they remain responsible for the accuracy, quality, and appropriateness of all course content.
Faculty should not rely on AI to make final decisions about grading, assessment, or student performance without human review.
Faculty should guide students in the ethical and effective use of AI and help students develop critical thinking skills to evaluate AI outputs.
Always review and validate AI-generated responses for accuracy and appropriateness before using them.
Use approved institutional accounts and tools whenever possible.
Never share sensitive, confidential, FERPA-protected, HIPAA-protected, or proprietary information in public generative AI tools.
- Belmont requires users to protect institutional, student, health, and proprietary data when using AI tools
- The guidance prohibits entering sensitive or regulated information into public generative AI systems and recommends use of approved institutional accounts and platforms; the university also provides Microsoft Copilot through Microsoft 365 for faculty, staff, and students
Never share sensitive, confidential, FERPA-protected, HIPAA-protected, or proprietary information in public generative AI tools.
Do not input confidential, proprietary, or personally identifiable research data into public AI tools.
Use approved institutional accounts and tools whenever possible.
Microsoft Copilot is available to all Belmont faculty, staff, and students through your Microsoft 365 account.
- Belmont has an institution-level AI strategy centered on its AI Commons initiative and a formal policy framework emphasizing ethical, human-centered, and mission-aligned use of AI
- Its materials present AI as a university priority for teaching, scholarship, and operations while stressing stewardship, human responsibility, and community guidance rather than unrestricted adoption
Belmont AI Commons exists to help Belmont faculty, staff, and students explore, learn, and innovate with artificial intelligence in ways that support our Christ-centered mission and commitment to human flourishing.
Belmont University supports the thoughtful, ethical, and responsible use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in ways that align with our institutional mission, values, and commitment to academic excellence.
AI should be used in ways that augment human creativity and judgment, not replace them.
Belmont seeks to cultivate a campus culture in which AI is used responsibly, transparently, and in service of teaching, learning, scholarship, and institutional effectiveness.
DocuMark: Responsible AI Use for Academic Integrity
Knowing your institution's AI policy is step one. DocuMark helps enforce it fairly by empowering universities to manage AI-generated content, prevent cheating, and support student writing through responsible AI use.
Common Questions About Belmont University's AI Policies
Belmont University has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Belmont requires transparency about AI use when an instructor, journal, conference, or granting body requires disclosure. Faculty are encouraged to specify citation and disclosure expectations in course materials, and students may have to acknowledge AI assistance depending on course rules. There is no single university-wide citation formula in the provided sources.
Belmont’s provided sources do not establish a university-wide AI detection rule, but they do set enforcement consequences for unauthorized AI use through existing academic integrity processes. In the College of Medicine handbook, submitting AI-generated material as one’s own without faculty authorization is explicitly classified as plagiarism, which is handled as academic misconduct.
Belmont requires users to protect institutional, student, health, and proprietary data when using AI tools. The guidance prohibits entering sensitive or regulated information into public generative AI systems and recommends use of approved institutional accounts and platforms; the university also provides Microsoft Copilot through Microsoft 365 for faculty, staff, and students.