Teaching & Learning
- Use of AI for coursework and assignments is primarily set at the course level through the syllabus
- When AI materially contributes to an assignment, students must disclose the tool and the assistance provided
- Instructors must state whether AI is prohibited, permitted with disclosure, or encouraged/required, and faculty may make rules stricter than the general guidance but cannot override institution-level prohibitions
Every syllabus must include a clear AI use statement. The statement must specify: (1) which AI uses are permitted or prohibited in this course; (2) required disclosure practices; and (3) the consequence for violation.
• Faculty may set stricter rules (e.g., prohibiting AI in a course where it is generally permitted). Faculty may not loosen prohibited uses.
When AI tools materially contribute to an assignment, students must disclose the tool used and the nature of the assistance. Disclosure is not punitive. It is the condition of trust and the basis for fair evaluation.
- AI use during examinations or other restricted assessments is prohibited institution-wide
- The faculty guidance also says instructors remain responsible for reviewing any AI-generated assessment materials they create, and AI-generated rubrics used in high-stakes grading must be reviewed by the instructor before use
Using AI during closed-book or restricted assessments
• Prohibited uses apply regardless of course policy. They are institutional, not instructor-level, prohibitions.
Yes. AI-generated assessment materials are permitted with disclosure to your department Chair. You remain responsible for reviewing all content for accuracy, bias, and alignment with course objectives before use. AI-generated rubrics that are used in high-stakes grading decisions must be reviewed by you before application.
- AI may be used for studying and learning support when the instructor allows it
- The university explicitly describes AI as a study partner for brainstorming, outlining, study help, or getting unstuck, but students must still be able to explain their work and disclose use when allowed
💡 Bottom line: AI can be a great study partner, but it can't do your learning for you. Use it like a tool, not a shortcut, and be prepared to show your work.
✅ If your professor allows it, use it to brainstorm, outline, study, or get unstuck — just say so.
"Could I explain the steps, reasoning, or choices behind this work — out loud, right now?"
If the answer is no, AI has done your thinking for you, and that's a problem.
When AI use is allowed, say what you used and how. Disclosure isn't a punishment — it's what makes your work trustworthy.
- AI coding assistance is allowed only if the course policy permits it; there is no single campus-wide rule allowing it in all classes
- Faculty guidance explicitly includes coding assistance and debugging as uses that may be allowed with disclosure, and the student one-pager says course syllabi control whether AI may be used
Concept review & study aids Coding assistance & debugging Using AI during closed-book or
restricted assessments
Students may use AI tools to support their learning in this course (e.g.,
brainstorming, editing, coding assistance). Any AI use that contributes to
submitted work must be disclosed using the HT AI Disclosure Form at the
end of your assignment. Undisclosed AI use will be treated as academic
dishonesty.
There's no single campus-wide "AI is allowed/not allowed" rule. Your syllabus is the source of truth. Some classes ban it completely, some let you use it for certain tasks, and some might require it.
Research
- Researchers must also verify AI-generated analyses, citations, and factual claims, and follow journal and discipline standards for disclosure and citation
- AI may be used in research writing and manuscript preparation, but disclosure is required in manuscripts and presentations, and AI cannot be listed as an author
Publication Standards
Manuscripts and presentations must include clear disclosure of any AI tools used in
writing, data analysis, figure generation, or methodology. AI may not be listed as an
author.
• Verify all AI-generated analyses, citations, and factual claims against authoritative
sources.
• Disclose AI use in manuscripts and presentations per journal and discipline standards. AI
may not be listed as an author on any publication.
6.3 Citing AI in Scholarly Work
Citation standards for AI tools are still evolving. Use the format appropriate for your discipline:
- AI may be used in research data processing and analysis only with transparency, reproducibility, and human oversight
- Researchers must document the tools and parameters used, verify AI-generated analyses, keep human oversight over interpretation and methodological decisions, and must not fabricate or alter data or publish findings based on undisclosed or non-reproducible AI processes
Researchers must ensure transparency, reproducibility, and responsible use of AI
systems in all phases of research. This includes:
• Verifying the accuracy, reliability, and limitations of AI-generated analyses
• Maintaining human oversight of data interpretation and methodological decisions
• Documenting AI tools, algorithms, and parameters used in data processing or
analysis
• Ensuring compliance with IRB/ethics review protocols when AI interacts with
human subjects or personal data
Researchers must avoid:
• Using AI to fabricate or alter data
• Relying on AI outputs without verification
• Using proprietary AI tools in ways that violate license agreements or data
governance policies
• Publishing findings that depend on undisclosed or non-reproducible AI processes
- The university requires IRB review when AI is used in research involving human participants or personal data
- Researchers must follow ethics review protocols, comply with sponsor and grant restrictions before using AI in research workflows, and disclose AI use in manuscripts and grant applications as required by the research guidance
HT's Institutional Review Board, the federally mandated
committee responsible for reviewing and approving research
involving human subjects. Any research project that uses AI
tools to interact with, collect data from, or generate outputs
about human participants must be reviewed by the IRB to
ensure compliance with federal ethical standards (45 CFR 46,
the Common Rule).
• Ensure IRB/ethics review protocols are satisfied when AI interacts with human subjects or
personal data.
• Review your grant and contract terms before incorporating AI into research workflows —
some sponsors prohibit AI use with research data or require specific security measures.
Disclosure to your department is not currently required for routine scholarly use. However, you
must disclose in manuscripts and grant applications per the requirements in Section 6. If your
use of AI raises IRB questions or involves sponsored research data, consult the Office of
Sponsored Programs before proceeding.
Academic Integrity
- Disclosure and attribution of AI use are required for students, faculty, and researchers when AI contributes to academic or professional work
- Required disclosure includes the tool name and version, the nature of the assistance, and the extent of AI-generated content, and AI tools should be cited using discipline-appropriate standards
Students, faculty, and researchers must clearly acknowledge any use of AI tools in the
creation of academic or professional work.
Required disclosure should include:
• The name and version of the AI tool used
• The nature of assistance provided (e.g., drafting, proofreading, coding support,
data visualization, idea generation)
• The extent to which the final product incorporates AI-generated content
AI tools should be cited in accordance with discipline-appropriate standards (APA, MLA,
Chicago, etc.). When in doubt, authors must err on the side of transparency.
When AI tools materially contribute to an assignment, students must disclose the tool
used and the nature of the assistance. Disclosure is not punitive. It is the condition of
trust and the basis for fair evaluation.
• "Disclosure" in the Permitted column means students must complete the HT AI Disclosure
Form (Appendix A) as part of their submission.
- Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use is treated as academic misconduct or academic dishonesty, with instructors applying syllabus penalties and reporting through the student conduct process
- HT does not accept AI detection tools as definitive or reliable proof of misconduct and says concerns must be handled through established academic integrity processes rather than detector output alone
AI Detection Tool Software purporting to identify AI-generated text by analyzing
writing patterns, perplexity, or other linguistic features. HT does
not recognize AI detection tools as definitive or reliable evidence
of academic misconduct. Detection tools have documented high
false-positive rates, particularly for non-native English speakers.
Academic integrity concerns must be investigated through
established processes, not resolved solely by detection tool
output.
• Avoid AI detection tools as primary enforcement mechanisms. Detection tools have high
false-positive rates for non-native English speakers and students with certain writing
styles. They disproportionately harm the students HT is most committed to supporting.
original work without proper disclosure and attribution constitutes academic misconduct.
This includes text, images, data analysis, code, or multimedia produced substantially or
entirely by AI systems. Using AI to generate work and passing it off as one’s own is a violation of the HT
Academic Conduct Code, just like any other form of academic dishonesty.
Treat it as an violation of the academic code of conduct. Enact the grade penalties you have
previously established in your syllabus. Document the incident and follow the process outlined
in the HT Student Handbook to report academic misconduct.
Institutional & Administrative
- The broader policy also says AI should support, not replace, faculty roles in teaching, research, and mentorship
- Faculty may use AI for draft feedback, pattern identification across submissions, and generating assessment materials, but only with human review and professional judgment
- Student identifying information cannot be entered into non-compliant tools, and instructors must review and substantially revise AI-generated feedback and review AI-generated rubrics used in high-stakes grading
Yes, with restrictions. You may use AI to generate draft feedback or identify patterns across
submissions, provided: (1) you review and substantially revise all AI-generated feedback before
delivery; (2) no student identifying information is entered into a non-compliant tool (check the
Approved Tools list); and (3) final feedback represents your professional judgment.
Yes. AI-generated assessment materials are permitted with disclosure to your department
Chair. You remain responsible for reviewing all content for accuracy, bias, and alignment with
course objectives before use. AI-generated rubrics that are used in high-stakes grading
decisions must be reviewed by you before application.
The work of teaching, research, and mentorship is central to HT’s mission and cannot
be reduced to tasks for automation. AI may support faculty in their work but should not
diminish the role of faculty in the educational experience.
- HT maintains an approved-tools process through the Office of Information Technology, and tools not on the approved list must undergo review for privacy, security, and data handling before approval
- Sensitive university information must not be entered into public AI tools, and the policy explicitly forbids entering student records, legally protected information, proprietary research data, and confidential personnel information into such systems
Users must assume that information supplied to an AI tool could be stored, used for
training, or seen by others. Public AI tools like ChatGPT, Claude, and similar services
do not have the security protections required for sensitive university data.
The following must NEVER be entered into public AI tools: student records and any
information protected by FERPA; personal information such as Social Security
numbers, financial data, or health information; proprietary research data; confidential
personnel information; or any data subject to legal, contractual, or regulatory
restrictions.
The Office of Information Technology will maintain a list of AI tools that have been
reviewed and approved for use with distinct types of university information. If a student or employee wants to use an AI tool that is not on the approved list, or if an
existing tool adds AI features, they may contact the Department of Information
Technology and request a review. New tools need to be reviewed for privacy, security,
and data handling practices before they can be approved.
- HT frames AI as an institutional tool that must support its educational mission through responsible, ethical, transparent, and privacy-compliant use
- The policy commits the university to governance and oversight for institutionally supported AI systems, including pre-deployment review for data handling, security, and compliance, preservation of human responsibility for consequential decisions, clear accountability lines, and ongoing training and annually updated guidance documents
This policy establishes clear expectations for the responsible, ethical, and transparent
use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies within Huston-Tilloston University (HT). Its
purpose is to:
• Ensure that AI tools are used in ways that support student learning, teaching,
research, and administrative efficiency
• Protect academic integrity and uphold institutional values
• Promote safe, secure, and privacy-compliant use of AI systems
• Provide guidance for evaluating risks, limitations, and appropriate applications of
AI
• Clarify responsibilities for individuals and units using AI in academic or
operational contexts
Governance, Oversight, and Implementation
The University will not adopt AI tools in ways that compromise student privacy, faculty
intellectual work, or institutional confidentiality. Any institutionally supported AI system
must be reviewed for data handling, security, and compliance obligations before
deployment.
Institutional use of AI must preserve human responsibility for consequential decisions.
AI systems may assist in administrative tasks, but they must not become unreviewed
decision makers in areas that affect student standing, employment outcomes, discipline,
grading, or access to resources.
The University will maintain clear lines of accountability: tool selection, authorized use
cases, training requirements, and reporting pathways for concerns. Where AI is used in
University operations, the University will specify the human decision owner responsible
for oversight and correction.
AI policy will succeed only if paired with training, shared templates, and practical
classroom guidance. The University will provide:
• Clear guidance to faculty via an “AI Use Guidance for Faculty” document
generated by the AI Working Committee in coordination with the Office of the
Provost. Faculty Senate input will be incorporated into this document. It will be
updated annually.
• Clear guidance to the University community via an “AI Use Guidance for the
University Community” document generated by the AI Working Committee in
coordination with the Office of Information Technology.It will be updated
annually
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 Huston-Tillotson University's AI Policies
Huston-Tillotson University has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Disclosure and attribution of AI use are required for students, faculty, and researchers when AI contributes to academic or professional work. Required disclosure includes the tool name and version, the nature of the assistance, and the extent of AI-generated content, and AI tools should be cited using discipline-appropriate standards.
HT does not accept AI detection tools as definitive or reliable proof of misconduct and says concerns must be handled through established academic integrity processes rather than detector output alone. Undisclosed or unauthorized AI use is treated as academic misconduct or academic dishonesty, with instructors applying syllabus penalties and reporting through the student conduct process.
Sensitive university information must not be entered into public AI tools, and the policy explicitly forbids entering student records, legally protected information, proprietary research data, and confidential personnel information into such systems. HT maintains an approved-tools process through the Office of Information Technology, and tools not on the approved list must undergo review for privacy, security, and data handling before approval.