Teaching & Learning
- Use of AI for coursework varies by instructor, department, or program rather than following a single college-wide rule
- Students may use AI on assignments only when the instructor authorizes it and within the stated parameters; undisclosed substitution of AI for a student's own work is prohibited and treated as cheating and plagiarism
The college does not have a standardized policy on AI use. Instead, individual faculty members, departments, or academic programs may determine their own. All syllabi and assignments should include clear guidance on whether and how students can use generative AI in the course or on specific assignments.
If an instructor authorizes the use of AI in an assignment, then such usage is not considered cheating if the student’s usage stays within the instructor’s stated parameters. However, the presentation of any external source materials, including AI-generated materials, without appropriate attribution constitutes plagiarism.
Any use of generative AI tools must be in line with the usage policy for specific assignments as defined in the course syllabus and/or communicated by the course instructor.
Using artificial intelligence tools or systems, such as language models or code generators, to generate content for assignments or exams without written authorization from the instructor.
Unless specifically authorized by the instructor, the use of artificial intelligence technology to generate coursework is a violation of the CUNY/College Policy on Academic Integrity and constitutes both cheating and plagiarism.
- AI use in exams is prohibited unless the instructor gives written authorization
- The academic integrity policy also bans unauthorized use of devices or technologies during examinations to generate or send information
Cheating is the unauthorized use or attempted use of material, information, notes, study aids, devices, artificial intelligence (AI) systems, or communication during an academic exercise.
Using artificial intelligence tools or systems, such as language models or code generators, to generate content for assignments or exams without written authorization from the instructor.
Unauthorized use during an examination of notes, prepared answers, or any electronic devices such as cell phones, computers, smart watches, or other technologies to copy, retrieve, generate or send information.
- John Jay explicitly recognizes AI as a learning and tutoring tool for students and describes multiple study-support uses
- At the same time, the guidance says AI should support learning rather than replace it, and students should not rely on AI as a shortcut for academic work
Recognize AI as a Tutor and Learning Tool for Students
Generative AI tools can summarize readings, offer feedback on work for improvement, provide editing suggestions, teach a student the steps to solving complex problems, generate annotated bibliographies, determine if evidence is relevant to assertions, and refine theses.
AI tutoring tools designed for learning adapt to the student’s progress, providing guidance that is tailored to their specific skill level and learning curve, especially in skill-based education. For homework assistance and tutoring, AI serves as an invaluable resource, offering instant help and problem-solving support.
Examples of adhering to academic integrity in the AI era include properly citing sources generated by AI, using AI as a tool for learning rather than a shortcut for academic work, and engaging in original thought and critical analysis.
AI may assist with learning; it may not replace the learning itself.
- AI code generation is governed by the same instructor-authorization rule as other coursework
- The university specifically names code generators as tools that cannot be used to generate assignment or exam content without written instructor authorization; the draft principles also note that faculty may integrate AI into programming when it supports learning outcomes
Using artificial intelligence tools or systems, such as language models or code generators, to generate content for assignments or exams without written authorization from the instructor.
Faculty may choose not to use AI in their pedagogy. However, when choosing to integrate AI into assignments, programming, or support, it should meaningfully contribute to learning outcomes, support authentic assessment, and help students build career readiness.
Research
- The general guidelines also describe AI as a tool for research and scholarship but do not provide a separate student research-manuscript rule
- For faculty performing research, AI use in research writing is permitted only with transparency: the use of AI must be cited and explained, and the faculty member's own intellectual contribution must be clearly identified
Generative AI is a powerful tool for research and scholarship, and its effective use is becoming an essential workplace skill.
Specifically for faculty performing research, the use of AI must be cited and explained and one’s own intellectual contributions clearly delineated.
- The university prohibits entering protected or confidential research-related information into unsecured AI systems and treats fabrication or falsification of data as academic dishonesty
- The draft principles also allow AI for collaborative administrative analysis, but the provided sources do not set a detailed research-data analysis protocol beyond privacy and integrity limits
Most AI programs are hosted by commercial entities and thus any information entered can be used by those entities. All unsecured AI systems should be treated like public platforms: no information should be shared that one would not share publicly. No one should enter protected information into an AI platform, such as student information regulated by FERPA, human subject research information, health information, HR records, etc. People should also avoid prompts/responses regarding confidential work-related information, unpublished work, and individual ideas you would not want others to have access to.
While AI may be used for collaborative administrative analysis and work, one should never represent any AI-generated content as one’s own intellectual work.
Fabricating and/or falsifying data (in whole or in part).
- For faculty research, AI use must be transparent: it must be cited and explained, and the human author's contribution must be clearly delineated
- The sources also require compliance with FERPA, HIPAA, and CUNY data privacy regulations for all AI use, and they bar misrepresenting AI-generated content as one's own intellectual work
Faculty and staff must represent AI-generated content transparently and responsibly. While AI may be used for collaborative administrative analysis and work, one should never represent any AI-generated content as one’s own intellectual work. Specifically for faculty performing research, the use of AI must be cited and explained and one’s own intellectual contributions clearly delineated.
All AI use must comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), applicable state and federal laws, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and CUNY data privacy regulations.
Academic Integrity
- Disclosure and attribution are required when AI is used
- Students must be prepared to show how they used AI, AI-generated materials require appropriate attribution, and faculty may require statements or checklists describing AI use; for faculty research, AI use must be cited and explained
Be prepared to demonstrate how you used AI to produce any or all of your work.
However, the presentation of any external source materials, including AI-generated materials, without appropriate attribution constitutes plagiarism.
Current manuals for the key writing styles used in academic writing (APA, MLA, Chicago Manual of Style) have provided guidance as to how to appropriately handle the citation of AI-generated materials:
Crediting as opposed to citing AI: If a student is allowed to use AI to “brainstorm” for a discussion board or low stakes essay for example, as opposed to using AI generated text as part of a final written process, they should credit that usage as opposed to citing it. Instructors may consider asking students to submit statements or checklists delineating exactly how AI was used in the assignment. Showing your work, and the role AI played in developing it, is important to demonstrating the goal of education, your own thought process.
Students must represent AI-generated content transparently and responsibly, and as instructed by their professors.
Specifically for faculty performing research, the use of AI must be cited and explained and one’s own intellectual contributions clearly delineated.
Submitting content generated by another person or an AI system or tool or other sources as solely your own work, including, but not limited to, material obtained in whole or in part from commercial study or homework help websites, or content generated or altered by AI or digital paraphrasing tools without proper citation.
- John Jay states that it does not endorse AI detection tools, and the model syllabus says CUNY has not authorized any specific AI detector
- Enforcement instead runs through academic integrity rules: unauthorized AI use in coursework or exams is classified as cheating and plagiarism, though some instructors may use unauthorized detection tools only as a baseline for further review
John Jay does not endorse the use of any AI detection tools. According to multiple peer-reviewed articles, AI detection tools, which attempt to differentiate AI-generated language from human-generated language, are likely to report false positives and false negatives.
As of this writing CUNY has not authorized any specific AI detection tools. In the interim, some instructors have used free AI detection programs (e.g., ChatGPTZero) as a baseline for their concerns about AI-generated student work. The use of such unauthorized software may be helpful in determining whether concern and additional discussion/review of student work is warranted, but
Unless specifically authorized by the instructor, the use of artificial intelligence technology to generate coursework is a violation of the CUNY/College Policy on Academic Integrity and constitutes both cheating and plagiarism.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty may choose whether to use AI in pedagogy, and when they do, they are expected to set clear syllabus and assignment rules for students
- Faculty and staff may use AI to support administrative work, pedagogy, assignments, programming, and related tasks, but AI must not replace professional judgment or be presented as the user's own intellectual work
Faculty may choose not to use AI in their pedagogy. However, when choosing to integrate AI into assignments, programming, or support, it should meaningfully contribute to learning outcomes, support authentic assessment, and help students build career readiness.
Faculty and staff must represent AI-generated content transparently and responsibly. While AI may be used for collaborative administrative analysis and work, one should never represent any AI-generated content as one’s own intellectual work.
AI should reduce administrative burden, support informed decision making, and free employees to focus on high impact, human-centered work. AI may be used as a support and never a substitute for professional judgment and accountability in administrative and operational decisions.
All syllabi and assignments should include clear guidance on whether and how students can use generative AI in the course or on specific assignments.
- The draft principles additionally require compliance with FERPA, HIPAA, and CUNY data privacy regulations; the sources do not identify a list of approved AI platforms
- John Jay requires users to treat unsecured AI systems like public platforms and forbids entering protected information such as FERPA-regulated student data, human subject research information, health information, or HR records
Most AI programs are hosted by commercial entities and thus any information entered can be used by those entities. All unsecured AI systems should be treated like public platforms: no information should be shared that one would not share publicly. No one should enter protected information into an AI platform, such as student information regulated by FERPA, human subject research information, health information, HR records, etc. People should also avoid prompts/responses regarding confidential work-related information, unpublished work, and individual ideas you would not want others to have access to.
All AI use must comply with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), applicable state and federal laws, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and CUNY data privacy regulations.
- The materials say the guidelines will be updated as AI uses and knowledge change, but they do not identify a formal AI committee or detailed governance structure in the provided sources
- John Jay has issued college-level AI responsible use guidelines and a president's draft principles document that frame institutional AI use around equity, academic integrity, privacy, professional conduct, and human judgment
These guidelines – which we will update as AI uses and knowledge change – are intended to provide guidance to John Jay students and faculty as they consider the pros and cons of learning to use or teaching and guiding students in the uses of AI.
Principles and Practices for AI Use at John Jay
AI must be used in ways that deepen—not diminish—our commitment to fairness, human dignity, and social justice.
Above all else, human judgment must remain central to decisions affecting students, employees, and the college.
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 CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice's AI Policies
CUNY John Jay College of Criminal Justice has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Disclosure and attribution are required when AI is used. Students must be prepared to show how they used AI, AI-generated materials require appropriate attribution, and faculty may require statements or checklists describing AI use; for faculty research, AI use must be cited and explained.
John Jay states that it does not endorse AI detection tools, and the model syllabus says CUNY has not authorized any specific AI detector. Enforcement instead runs through academic integrity rules: unauthorized AI use in coursework or exams is classified as cheating and plagiarism, though some instructors may use unauthorized detection tools only as a baseline for further review.
John Jay requires users to treat unsecured AI systems like public platforms and forbids entering protected information such as FERPA-regulated student data, human subject research information, health information, or HR records. The draft principles additionally require compliance with FERPA, HIPAA, and CUNY data privacy regulations; the sources do not identify a list of approved AI platforms.