Teaching & Learning
- Creighton treats unauthorized AI use in graded coursework as academic misconduct
- The university's library guidance says students must follow course policies and instructor expectations for AI use, and the provost's 2025 guidance says faculty should clearly state whether and how AI may be used in class assignments
Submitting work generated by an artificial intelligence software program as one’s own work and/or without citation is also an example of cheating.
Using AI in the Classroom:
Be aware of the specific guidelines and expectations set by your instructors. Instructors may have different policies regarding the use of AI in their courses.
Students are responsible for understanding and adhering to these guidelines.
We ask that faculty share their expectations around AI usage in their syllabi and communicate them clearly with students.
- Creighton does not state an AI-specific university-wide exam rule in the provided sources
- Instead, unauthorized assistance on examinations is prohibited under general academic honesty rules, so AI use during exams or assessments would be governed by those rules and any instructor directions
Using unauthorized materials or inappropriate collaboration on examinations, papers or other assignments is considered cheating.
Use of notes, books, the internet, or any unauthorized source in examinations or quizzes is considered cheating.
- Creighton provides advisory guidance rather than a blanket rule for AI as a study aid
- The library says students may use AI to support learning but should verify information, think critically, and comply with instructor-specific rules
AI can be a powerful tool to help with brainstorming, exploring topics, creating examples and getting feedback. But it should not replace your own thinking and understanding.
Fact-Check Everything: AI can make mistakes and present false or misleading information as facts. Always verify any information provided by AI with credible sources.
Using AI in the Classroom:
Be aware of the specific guidelines and expectations set by your instructors. Instructors may have different policies regarding the use of AI in their courses.
Students are responsible for understanding and adhering to these guidelines.
Research
- The research misconduct documents address fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism generally, but do not expressly define AI use for manuscript preparation
- Creighton's provided sources do not set an AI-specific policy for using generative AI to draft, edit, or format research papers, theses, dissertations, or manuscripts
not defined
- Creighton defines research misconduct using the standard categories of fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, and applies those standards to federally funded and non-federally funded research
- The provided sources do not mention AI specifically in grant proposals, IRB applications, or ethics filings, but they do establish the research integrity framework that would govern misconduct concerns
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research and does not include honest error or differences of opinion.
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, plagiarism in proposing, performing, reviewing, or reporting research, or other practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted within the scientific and scholarly communities for proposing, performing, or reporting research.
Academic Integrity
- Creighton requires attribution when AI-generated material is used in student work
- The undergraduate academic honesty policy explicitly states that submitting AI-generated work as one's own work or without citation is cheating, and the library guidance tells students to be transparent and cite AI when required by the instructor or assignment
Submitting work generated by an artificial intelligence software program as one’s own work and/or without citation is also an example of cheating.
Citation and Disclosure:
If your instructor or assignment requires it, make sure to cite your use of AI appropriately. Transparency in using these tools is important.
- Creighton enforces unauthorized AI use through its standard academic misconduct process
- Uncited AI work is defined as cheating, with sanctions ranging from warnings to dismissal
- The provost's guidance also explicitly cautions faculty against using AI detection software as the sole basis for misconduct allegations because of its inaccuracy and risk of false positives
Submitting work generated by an artificial intelligence software program as one’s own work and/or without citation is also an example of cheating.
Sanctions for Academic Misconduct. The range of possible sanctions include, but are not limited to, warning; required completion of an educational seminar or counseling related to the misconduct; grade adjustment up to and including failing the assignment; notation in the student conduct file; probation; suspension; dismissal; withholding degree; and/or revocation of degree.
At the same time, AI detection software should never be used as the sole basis for academic misconduct allegations due to its inaccuracy and risk of false positives.
Institutional & Administrative
- Creighton's 2025 provost guidance addresses faculty use of AI in teaching
- Faculty are encouraged to engage with AI deliberately, communicate course expectations in syllabi, and are cautioned not to rely solely on AI detectors; no broader staff-wide administrative AI policy is stated in the provided sources
At Creighton, our response is guided by cura personalis and a commitment to helping students engage with AI thoughtfully and ethically.
We ask that faculty share their expectations around AI usage in their syllabi and communicate them clearly with students.
At the same time, AI detection software should never be used as the sole basis for academic misconduct allegations due to its inaccuracy and risk of false positives.
- Creighton warns users not to enter confidential, personal, or sensitive information into AI systems because prompts may be stored or used for training
- The library guidance also recommends using institutionally provided AI resources where available and being cautious about privacy and copyright when selecting tools
Protect Sensitive Information: Never input personal, confidential or proprietary information into an AI tool. Your prompts and the AI's responses might be stored and used for training or other purposes.
When selecting an AI tool, consider the privacy implications, accuracy and copyright implications. Look to use resources available from institutions or organizations if possible.
- Creighton has articulated institution-level AI guidance focused on thoughtful, ethical engagement rather than a formal standalone governance policy in the provided sources
- The provost describes a university response grounded in mission and announces continuing faculty support and conversation, while the libraries maintain AI guidance and emerging technology resources
At Creighton, our response is guided by cura personalis and a commitment to helping students engage with AI thoughtfully and ethically.
Recognizing the need for ongoing dialogue and support, all faculty have been enrolled in a self-paced AI resource course on BlueLine. We hope this helps us continue to navigate these complexities together and with care.
The AI & Emerging Technologies webpage brings together info on all the cool new technology at Creighton University's Libraries. Here you can find research and instruction resources related to AI, XR (VR/AR), and various multimedia projects.
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 Creighton University's AI Policies
Creighton University has defined AI policies in 10 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 83%.
Creighton requires attribution when AI-generated material is used in student work. The undergraduate academic honesty policy explicitly states that submitting AI-generated work as one's own work or without citation is cheating, and the library guidance tells students to be transparent and cite AI when required by the instructor or assignment.
Creighton enforces unauthorized AI use through its standard academic misconduct process. Uncited AI work is defined as cheating, with sanctions ranging from warnings to dismissal. The provost's guidance also explicitly cautions faculty against using AI detection software as the sole basis for misconduct allegations because of its inaccuracy and risk of false positives.
Creighton warns users not to enter confidential, personal, or sensitive information into AI systems because prompts may be stored or used for training. The library guidance also recommends using institutionally provided AI resources where available and being cautious about privacy and copyright when selecting tools.