Teaching & Learning
- Students may use generative AI only if that use complies with the college’s academic honesty rules and with any course-specific instructor directions about use, non-use, or attestation
- The college-wide academic honesty policy also prohibits plagiarism, unauthorized collaboration, false citation, submitting work prepared by another, and false data, which can apply to AI-assisted coursework
The use of Generative AI tools must align with the college’s academic honesty policies. Students are responsible for content generated under their accounts and must ensure its use does not violate intellectual property rights or data privacy, or any instructions provided by individual instructors regarding the use, non-use, and attestation in a specific course.
All types of academic dishonesty are forbidden, including the following:
Collusion means the unauthorized collaboration with another person in preparing written work offered for credit. Collaboration must be based upon the explicit consent of the instructor and must be acknowledged in the statement of authorship of the report.
False citation is any attribution to, or citation of, a source from which the reference material was not in fact obtained.
Submission of this type includes commercially prepared papers and work of any typewritten or developed by any other person.
False data are data that have been altered or contrived in such a way as to be deliberately misleading.
- AI use in tests and other assessments is governed by academic honesty rules and by instructor authorization
- During a test, using electronic devices in an unauthorized manner is treated as cheating, and students also must follow any individual instructor instructions about AI use or non-use in a course
The use of Generative AI tools must align with the college’s academic honesty policies. Students are responsible for content generated under their accounts and must ensure its use does not violate intellectual property rights or data privacy, or any instructions provided by individual instructors regarding the use, non-use, and attestation in a specific course.
Cheating on a test includes copying from another’s test paper; having or using during a test, materials not authorized by the person giving the test; knowingly using, buying, selling, stealing, or soliciting in whole or in part the contents of a test that had been administered or not; substitution for another student or permitting another student to substitute for one’s self in the taking of a test; collaborating with or seeking aid from another person during a test; bribing another person to obtain a test that had been administered or not or information about a test that had been administered or not; and using electronic devices in an unauthorized manner during a test.
Research
- The research materials provided do not set an AI-specific rule for research data analysis, but they do require IRB approval before collecting or analyzing data in human-participant research
- For staff operational use of public AI tools, anonymized data trend or anomaly analysis is identified as probably acceptable, while analyzing data containing student names is not acceptable
Carthage College requires that all research utilizing human participants be approved BEFORE THE RESEARCH BEGINS. This includes recruiting participants (by posting flyers or soliciting participants in any way), or collecting and analyzing data.
Probably OK |
* To look for trends or anomalies in anonymized data
Not OK |
* To analyze data containing student names
- The university does not provide an AI-specific research-integrity rule for manuscripts, grant proposals, or IRB applications in the supplied research documents
- However, staff AI guidance requires AI use to comply with legal and ethical requirements, include human judgment in final decision-making, obtain informed consent for significant uses affecting individuals, and never place personally identifiable information into a public AI engine
Use of AI must be in line with legal and regulatory requirements (i.e. anti-discrimination law, FERPA, GLBA), and with ethical considerations. AI introduces some new ethical considerations. Below is a list of key ethical considerations.
Privacy | The collection and use of personal data by AI systems should respect privacy rights and adhere to relevant regulations. Informed consent should be obtained for significant uses where there are impacted individuals.
Ensure human judgment is part of the process for final decision-making, so the AI engine is a tool to assist the staff member, not the decision-maker
NEVER put personally-identifiable information into a public AI engine. Consider opportunities to utilize the technology with anonymized data.
Academic Integrity
- For student AI use, disclosure and attribution are handled partly through instructor control and existing citation rules
- Students must follow any instructor requirements about AI attestation in a specific course, must acknowledge authorized collaboration in the statement of authorship, and must not provide false citations
The use of Generative AI tools must align with the college’s academic honesty policies. Students are responsible for content generated under their accounts and must ensure its use does not violate intellectual property rights or data privacy, or any instructions provided by individual instructors regarding the use, non-use, and attestation in a specific course.
Collusion means the unauthorized collaboration with another person in preparing written work offered for credit. Collaboration must be based upon the explicit consent of the instructor and must be acknowledged in the statement of authorship of the report.
False citation is any attribution to, or citation of, a source from which the reference material was not in fact obtained.
- Carthage does not state a position on AI detection tools in the provided sources
- Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be enforced through the academic honesty process: faculty may issue warnings, fail the work or the course, reports go to the Provost, and a second academic dishonesty report results in automatic dismissal
The use of Generative AI tools must align with the college’s academic honesty policies. Students are responsible for content generated under their accounts and must ensure its use does not violate intellectual property rights or data privacy, or any instructions provided by individual instructors regarding the use, non-use, and attestation in a specific course.
Penalties for academic dishonesty are administered through the Provost’s Office and may include:
Warnings are to be given by individual faculty at their discretion when they observe signs of inadvertent academic dishonesty. The student is to be warned in writing and no report is filed with the Provost.
This penalty may be administered at the discretion of the faculty member whenever he or she can show an academic honesty violation has occurred. A written report of the violation and penalty must be submitted to the Provost, and a copy must be given to the student.
This penalty may be administered at the discretion of the faculty member whenever he or she can show an academic honesty violation has occurred. It is up to the faculty member to decide if a student fails the course or the work in question on a first occurrence. A written report of the violation and penalty must be submitted to the Office of the Provost. A letter grade of F will be recorded for that course on the student’s transcript.
Any time a student receives two academic dishonesty reports in the Office of the Provost, the student is automatically dismissed from the College.
Institutional & Administrative
- Carthage provides staff guidance for operational uses of AI, not for pedagogy
- The guidance also requires that human judgment remain part of final decision-making so AI assists staff rather than acting as the decision-maker
- Staff may use public AI tools for some non-sensitive tasks, such as writing procedures, enhancing public website images, editing a non-sensitive letter to parents, or generating pros and cons for a hypothetical situation; if unsure, they should consult a supervisor or LIS manager
This temporary guidance outlines appropriate use and acquisition of AI technology for staff and operational functions at the College.
It is not intended to address pedagogical factors or academic integrity, although some of this content may be informative to such purposes.
Ensure human judgment is part of the process for final decision-making, so the AI engine is a tool to assist the staff member, not the decision-maker
When Can I Use a Public AI Engine? Following are some examples for using a public AI engine (such as ChatGPT, Bing ai, Dali image generator, etc.) If in doubt, please consult with your supervisor or an LIS Manager. There may be opportunities to anonymize your prompt in order to use these tools.
Probably OK |
* To write a user procedure document
* To enhance an image for the public web site
* To edit a non-sensitive letter to parents
* To generate pros and cons for a hypothetical situation
- Carthage prohibits entering non-public institutional data or personally identifiable information into public AI engines
- Because the college has no contracts protecting sensitive data with open models, those models cannot be used with sensitive data
- Any AI contract or technology agreement must go through Library & Information Services, with an IT security review and prior written authorization
1. No Sensitive Data in Public Engines. Users of ChatGPT and similar artificial intelligence (AI) technology must avoid integrating, entering, or otherwise incorporating any non-public institutional data into public engines. The use of institutional data with these services may result in unauthorized disclosure to the public and may expose the user and the College to legal liability and other consequences.
As the College has no contracts to protect sensitive data with the open models at this time, we are unable to use them with sensitive data.
2. Contracts for AI must be Coordinated through Library & Information Services. Individual employees and units are not authorized to enter into technology agreements, absent an IT Security Review and prior written authorization from Library and Information Systems. Additionally, Carthage’s Security Terms and Conditions must be incorporated into the contract during the acquisition process. This policy applies to all technology, including AI.
NEVER put personally-identifiable information into a public AI engine. Consider opportunities to utilize the technology with anonymized data.
- Carthage has temporary staff guidance that frames AI as both an opportunity and a risk for operational functions
- The guidance signals future institutional AI capability for non-public data and directs employees with urgent use cases to Library & Information Services
- Governance is centered on Library & Information Services coordination, security review, and ethical and legal guardrails rather than a broader university-wide AI strategy in the supplied sources
ChatGPT and similar Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology/programs have leapfrogged into the forefront of productivity tools. The College recognizes the opportunities these tools create for staff and back office functions, as well as the risks. It is expected that offices have many creative opportunities to use AI to improve operations and service to students. This temporary guidance outlines appropriate use and acquisition of AI technology for staff and operational functions at the College.
In time, we expect the College to obtain AI capabilities for use with non-public data. If you have pressing use cases, please reach out to Library & Information Services to discuss the future opportunities.
2. Contracts for AI must be Coordinated through Library & Information Services. Individual employees and units are not authorized to enter into technology agreements, absent an IT Security Review and prior written authorization from Library and Information Systems.
Use of AI must be in line with legal and regulatory requirements (i.e. anti-discrimination law, FERPA, GLBA), and with ethical considerations.
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 Carthage College's AI Policies
Carthage College has defined AI policies in 9 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 75%.
For student AI use, disclosure and attribution are handled partly through instructor control and existing citation rules. Students must follow any instructor requirements about AI attestation in a specific course, must acknowledge authorized collaboration in the statement of authorship, and must not provide false citations.
Carthage does not state a position on AI detection tools in the provided sources. Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use can be enforced through the academic honesty process: faculty may issue warnings, fail the work or the course, reports go to the Provost, and a second academic dishonesty report results in automatic dismissal.
Carthage prohibits entering non-public institutional data or personally identifiable information into public AI engines. Because the college has no contracts protecting sensitive data with open models, those models cannot be used with sensitive data. Any AI contract or technology agreement must go through Library & Information Services, with an IT security review and prior written authorization.