Teaching & Learning
- Coursework AI use is governed by Georgetown’s Honor System
- Using AI without authorization to complete an assignment is treated as plagiarism
- Instructors set course-specific rules on whether and how AI tools may be used, and students are expected to follow those instructions and ask if unsure
“Using unauthorized artificial intelligence (AI) to write a paper or complete an assignment is a form of plagiarism.” … “While AI can be a helpful tool, you are still expected to demonstrate your own understanding of course material. This means: … Following your instructors’ guidelines. They will specify whether and how you can use AI tools in their courses. When in doubt, ask!”
- Using artificial intelligence on examinations without authorization is considered cheating under Georgetown’s Honor Code/Honor System
- Exam-specific permissions (if any) are determined by the instructor and/or school rules; absent permission, AI use to answer exam questions is prohibited
“Cheating includes but is not limited to… using unauthorized artificial intelligence (AI) to answer exam questions… obtaining or giving unauthorized assistance on any assignment, test, or examination.”
- Georgetown’s AI guidelines indicate students may use AI ethically as a study aid, including for explaining complex topics and generating practice questions, provided academic integrity expectations are maintained
“How can you use AI ethically? Here are a few examples of how you can use AI tools while still upholding academic integrity… As a study aid to explain complex topics or generate practice questions.”
- Programming and coding assignments are covered by Georgetown’s general academic integrity rules: using AI without authorization to complete an assignment (including generating code) is treated as plagiarism unless explicitly permitted by the instructor
“Using unauthorized artificial intelligence (AI) to write a paper or complete an assignment is a form of plagiarism.”
Research
- When using generative AI in research writing/manuscript preparation, users remain responsible for the integrity of the work and should avoid plagiarism
- Georgetown guidance notes it is good practice to cite generative AI outputs like other sources, and users should be mindful that publishers/journals may have their own AI policies
“You are responsible for the work you create, even if you use AI to help.” … “When you use generative AI to produce text or other content, it's a good practice to cite it, just as you would cite any other source… some publishers and academic journals have specific policies on the use of AI in scholarly writing.”
- This prohibition explicitly includes unpublished research data
- Georgetown prohibits entering confidential or sensitive university data— including data classified as Confidential or Restricted—into any AI service (including the university-provided Gemini)
“Do not enter any confidential or sensitive University data into any AI service, including the University-provided Gemini. Do not enter data defined as Confidential or Restricted by the University’s Data Classification guidelines. This includes, but is not limited to… unpublished research data.”
- Georgetown’s AI guidance emphasizes ethical principles relevant to research integrity, including user accountability for work produced with AI and fairness (being mindful of potential bias in AI systems and using AI in equitable ways)
“Accountability: You are responsible for the work you create, even if you use AI to help.” … “Fairness: Be mindful of potential biases in AI algorithms and the data they are trained on. Strive to use AI in a way that is fair and equitable.”
Academic Integrity
- Disclosure of AI use in academic work is required when an instructor (or course policy) requires it; Georgetown guidance also recommends citing generative AI outputs as a good practice, and the university library provides citation guidance (e.g., MLA/APA examples)
“When you use generative AI to produce text or other content, it's a good practice to cite it, just as you would cite any other source...” … “For students: Acknowledging AI use when you are required to do so.”
- Suspected AI-related academic misconduct is handled via Georgetown’s Honor Council process
- Faculty who suspect an Honor Code violation must report it for adjudication, and faculty are cautioned not to rely exclusively on AI-detection software given its limitations
“Faculty members who suspect a student of an Honor Code violation must report the case to the Honor Council for adjudication.” … “Faculty who use AI-detection software should be aware of the limitations of such programs and should not rely exclusively on them to determine whether a violation has occurred.”
Institutional & Administrative
- Georgetown provides role-based guidance for AI use
- Georgetown has licensed Google Gemini for use by faculty and staff
- Faculty are advised to set clear expectations for students about whether/how AI may be used in their courses (e.g., in the syllabus)
“For Faculty: Set clear expectations for your students about AI use in your courses. Your syllabus is a great place to do this...” … “For Staff: Explore how AI can help you with your work, but be mindful of university policies on data security and privacy. Do not use non-approved AI tools for any institutional data”
- Georgetown has licensed Google Gemini as an approved AI platform
- Regardless of tool (including Gemini), users are prohibited from entering confidential or sensitive university data—especially data classified as Confidential or Restricted—into any AI service; this includes categories such as PII/PHI, student records, and unpublished research data
“Georgetown University Information Services (UIS) has licensed Google Gemini for faculty, staff, and students.” … “Do not enter any confidential or sensitive University data into any AI service, including the University-provided Gemini. Do not enter data defined as Confidential or Restricted by the University’s Data Classification guidelines.”
- Georgetown’s university-wide AI strategy includes a Generative AI Committee to lead a campus process and develop a framework for AI use
- The published AI Guidelines are organized around core principles including Accountability, Transparency, Fairness, Privacy, Security, and Intellectual Property/Confidentiality
“In the spring, we are launching a university-wide process to engage our community.. and to develop a framework for the use of these technologies that is reflective of our identity and our values. This work is being led by a new Generative AI Committee...” … “Our guidelines are built on a set of core principles that can help you make informed decisions about when and how to use AI.”
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 Georgetown University's AI Policies
Georgetown University has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Disclosure of AI use in academic work is required when an instructor (or course policy) requires it; Georgetown guidance also recommends citing generative AI outputs as a good practice, and the university library provides citation guidance (e.g., MLA/APA examples).
Suspected AI-related academic misconduct is handled via Georgetown’s Honor Council process. Faculty who suspect an Honor Code violation must report it for adjudication, and faculty are cautioned not to rely exclusively on AI-detection software given its limitations.
Georgetown has licensed Google Gemini as an approved AI platform. Regardless of tool (including Gemini), users are prohibited from entering confidential or sensitive university data—especially data classified as Confidential or Restricted—into any AI service; this includes categories such as PII/PHI, student records, and unpublished research data.