Dickinson College AI Policy

Unless it is expressly permitted by your professor, articulated through the syllabus or other course documents, it is unacceptable for students to use generative AI tools on assignments or exams. Without this explicit permission, use of these tools constitutes a violation of Dickinson’s academic misconduct policy.

Faculty and staff are empowered to decide for themselves which of their learning outcomes are furthered by the use of AI tools, and which are not – this is essential to academic freedom. They must also safeguard academic integrity by writing syllabus statements that are clear about what they consider to be appropriate use, and what constitutes misuse.

Wherever you fall on the continuum between wholehearted incorporation or complete prohibition of the use of GenerativeAI, it is incumbent upon faculty to make the parameters of appropriate use clear in their syllabi and assignments.

Unless it is expressly permitted by your professor, articulated through the syllabus or other course documents, it is unacceptable for students to use generative AI tools on assignments or exams. Without this explicit permission, use of these tools constitutes a violation of Dickinson’s academic misconduct policy.

• Cheating: assistance of GenAI on examinations and quizzes, and/or prohibitive use of GenAI on graded assignments.

Students are encouraged to discuss with their professors whether any use of translation or artificial intelligence tools is appropriate for a specific assignment or exam.

Some students may use GAI as a learning aid and in ways that are not dishonest or in violation of the academic integrity policy. For example, they might use GAI as a subject tutor or as an assistant for planning their day-to-day schedule. Many students with disabilities may find GAI is very useful to help them overcome the barriers to their living and learning.

Academic Technology staff are also prepared to assist your students with productive uses of GAI that you might not be aware of and are not directly related to course assignments or projects. Please let us know if you'd like us to teach these uses to your class or you could refer individuals to us. Examples include, but are not limited to:

* Plan a group project

* Make a daily calendar to assist with time management (allotting time to study, eat, socialize, etc.)

* Create custom learning scenarios like case studies or role-plays to help with concepts they're struggling with or would like to engage with more deeply.

Because faculty have different opinions about the utility of GAIs, there is no single policy that works for every instructor of every course.

The Academic Technology Department is prepared to assist faculty who are interested in integrating AI into their assignments or courses. Examples may include AI for simulations, feedback, brainstorming, or explanations of text and code. Please contact your Academic Technology department liaison or James D’Annibale directly if you’d like help.

Faculty and staff are empowered to decide for themselves which of their learning outcomes are furthered by the use of AI tools, and which are not – this is essential to academic freedom.

The Faculty Personnel Committee is responsible for evaluating faculty at times of tenure, promotion, biennial and senior review. The committee should, through the course of academic year 25/26, work to develop a statement of guidance related to the uses of AI technologies in scholarly and creative production by faculty.

The Faculty Personnel Committee is responsible for evaluating faculty at times of tenure, promotion, biennial and senior review. The committee should, through the course of academic year 25/26, work to develop a statement of guidance related to the uses of AI technologies in scholarly and creative production by faculty.

There is not a one-size fits-all approach to these tools. But, any approach to generative artificial intelligence from academic affairs at the college must balance two imperatives: the protection of academic freedom and the protection of academic integrity.

• Plagiarism: using the work created by GenAI, in part or in whole, and claiming it as your own, and/or failure to properly disclose use of GenAI.

When GenAI use is allowed, professors may require that students disclose the nature and extent of use.

* If allowing any GAI use, explain responsible use, acknowledgements, etc.

I wholeheartedly endorse the following documents, created by James D’Annibale in consultation with multiple campus partners, to assist you in making decisions about AI and your courses:

Citing AI sources

Without this explicit permission, use of these tools constitutes a violation of Dickinson's academic misconduct policy.

Impermissible use of GenAI is its own form of academic misconduct. Depending on the design of the assignment within the context of the course, it may incorporate one or more related violations:

In practical terms, this means that cheating and plagiarizing the work of others is prohibited and that anyone who is accused of such may be penalized with a failing grade for the assignment in question, an F for the course, suspension, or other consequences.

In addition to updating the practices and policies through which faculty might resolve academic integrity charges, the policy also now contains a section specific to the misuse of GenAI.

Faculty and staff are empowered to decide for themselves which of their learning outcomes are furthered by the use of AI tools, and which aren’t. This is essential to academic freedom. They must also safeguard academic integrity by writing syllabus statements that are clear about what they consider to be appropriate use, and what constitutes misuse.

The use of Generative AI technologies occurs throughout offices within Academic Affairs, apart from the classroom, and apart from scholarly and creative production. We must recognize the diversity of this legitimate use, seek to understand the impact of AI on those campus units, and offer development and opportunities for learning, related to that use.

Faculty may adopt one of these statements as-is, adapt parts of several, or use them as inspiration to craft their own. The intention is not to present “correct” policies, but to support clear, intentional, and transparent communication with students about AI use.

not defined

I urge faculty and staff to consult, in addition to this statement and the links embedded within it, the several reports created by the Presidential Working Group on Artificial Intelligence, and the subcommittees of that body.

There is not a one-size fits-all approach to these tools. But, any approach to generative artificial intelligence from academic affairs at the college must balance two imperatives: the protection of academic freedom and the protection of academic integrity.

We cannot ignore the fact that our students will leave the college to enter careers and live lives that are impacted by these technologies. We must ensure that they leave Dickinson as AI-fluent global citizens, having engaged these technologies through a liberal arts curriculum.

Each academic department should, beginning in academic year 25/26, have ongoing and structured conversations about the curricula of the majors and minors provided by its faculty, and a collective conversation about where, in those curricula, AI learning should be incorporated.