Teaching & Learning
- Muhlenberg College treats unauthorized use of generative AI in coursework as a form of academic dishonesty
- Faculty guidance also indicates instructors may either prohibit AI or allow it with clear parameters in the syllabus
- The college states that work generated by ChatGPT or similar tools and submitted as one’s own is plagiarism, unless the assignment explicitly permits it or the instructor authorizes it
Submissions generated wholly or in part by ChatGPT or other similar AI-programs and submitted without attribution as one’s own original work are a form of plagiarism.
Can professors stop students from using ChatGPT? “Yes. If a professor does not want students to use ChatGPT for a given assignment, they should make a note of that in their syllabus and assignment directions. Remember, students should not use ChatGPT to produce work on assignments where they are not expressly allowed to use it.”
How can faculty prohibit plagiarism involving AI? If faculty do not want students to use ChatGPT or another generative AI platform for a given assignment, they should make a note of that in their syllabus and assignment directions. Students should not use ChatGPT to produce work on assignments where they are not expressly allowed to use it.
Is using ChatGPT a form of plagiarism? It can be. According to the Academic Integrity Code: “Submissions generated wholly or in part by ChatGPT or other similar AI-programs and submitted without attribution as one’s own original work are a form of plagiarism.”
- Muhlenberg College does not publish an AI-specific examination rule
- These provisions apply to AI tools when their use has not been authorized by the instructor
- Its academic integrity code prohibits unauthorized possession or use of any material, information, or device intended to gain an unfair advantage during examinations, tests, or quizzes, and prohibits unauthorized assistance or use of external resources during any academic exercise
Unauthorized possession, use, or attempt to gain access to any material, information, or device intended to gain an unfair advantage during completion of an academic exercise, such as examination, test, quiz, report, or assignment.
Unauthorized assistance, collaboration, or use of external resources when completing an academic exercise, including quizzes, tests, examinations, reports, assignments, papers, laboratory exercises, or other work designated as an academic exercise.
- Muhlenberg College does not establish a separate university-wide rule governing AI use as a personal study or learning aid
- By implication, using AI to help study or understand material is not specifically regulated, but submitting AI-generated work as one's own without attribution remains prohibited regardless of context
- The available guidance focuses on assignment and coursework contexts: instructor permission governs whether students may use AI tools, and faculty are directed to state in syllabi whether AI is allowed and under what conditions
Can professors stop students from using ChatGPT? "Yes. If a professor does not want students to use ChatGPT for a given assignment, they should make a note of that in their syllabus and assignment directions. Remember, students should not use ChatGPT to produce work on assignments where they are not expressly allowed to use it."
How can faculty prohibit plagiarism involving AI? If faculty do not want students to use ChatGPT or another generative AI platform for a given assignment, they should make a note of that in their syllabus and assignment directions. Students should not use ChatGPT to produce work on assignments where they are not expressly allowed to use it.
Note: No separate policy on AI as a standalone study aid is defined in available Muhlenberg sources; the above guidance addresses assignment-level permissions only.
Research
- The university’s cited materials do not establish an AI-specific rule for research data analysis
- However, its IT and data policies prohibit using non-contracted third-party AI tools with institutional data and prohibit sharing confidential or protected information with public or external AI systems unless explicitly approved by the Chief Information Security Officer
Muhlenberg College data must not be used with public, private, or externally hosted AI systems (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, etc.) without explicit written approval from Muhlenberg College Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). Institutional Data and Information include any data associated with the college as outlined in the Data Classification policy. Any AI solution that works with Muhlenberg data must undergo security and privacy review and have the final approval from CISO and contract review by General Counsel.
Examples of restricted and impermissible disclosure, sharing, and use of Institutional Data and Information include but are not limited to sharing or exposing Confidential and Protected data to any non-contracted third parties, whether software-as-a-service (SaaS) or otherwise, such as free services or AI applications including but not limited to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or other large language models, repositories, or systems.
Examples of impermissible disclosure, sharing, or use of Internal Only Institutional Data and Information include but are not limited to: using with public or external artificial intelligence (AI) systems, such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar AI tools, without explicit approval from the College Chief Information Security Officer (CISO).
- No AI disclosure requirements for grants or ethics declarations are established
- Muhlenberg College does not define an AI-specific research ethics or integrity policy in its available sources
- Its IRB materials require review for all research involving living human subjects and provide examples of student research needing IRB review, but contain no provisions addressing AI use in research design, data collection, or manuscript preparation
No AI-specific research ethics or integrity provisions were identified in Muhlenberg College's available policy sources. The IRB materials state: "All research involving living human subjects conducted under the auspices of Muhlenberg College must be reviewed by the Institutional Review Board for the Protection of Human Subjects (IRB) before any activities involving human subjects can begin." These materials do not address AI tools, AI-assisted research, or AI disclosure requirements.
Academic Integrity
- Muhlenberg College requires attribution when AI-generated material is used
- The academic integrity code says submitting work generated wholly or partly by ChatGPT or similar tools without attribution is plagiarism, and faculty guidance directs instructors to set disclosure and citation expectations for any allowed AI use
Submissions generated wholly or in part by ChatGPT or other similar AI-programs and submitted without attribution as one’s own original work are a form of plagiarism.
Can faculty allow students to use ChatGPT and still avoid plagiarism? “Absolutely! Faculty can discuss with students the proper use and attribution of ChatGPT.”
Can faculty use ChatGPT as a pedagogical tool? Yes. Faculty should consider drafting a clear statement to students regarding their expectations about using generative AI for assignments. Such statements may consider the following: whether any use of AI is acceptable for the assignment and, if so, what level of use is acceptable; proper citation and acknowledgement; and whether a student should include a statement about how they used AI in the development of the assignment.
- Muhlenberg College does not endorse AI detection tools as reliable evidence on their own
- Suspected AI-related misconduct is handled through the college’s academic integrity process and can result in penalties determined through that process
- Faculty guidance says AI detectors should not be the sole basis for an allegation and recommends using them only to flag concerns that are then evaluated through established academic integrity procedures
If suspecting student work is the product of AI, do not rely solely on AI detectors. Such platforms often have low rates of accuracy and can result in false positives. Rather, use these applications to flag suspicious responses and evaluate the assignment with other tools, such as our plagiarism detector Turnitin, or by searching the internet for suspicious passages.
What if an assignment incorporates AI in a way that potentially violates the AIC, for example, by relying too much on output from an AI application? Faculty should use the same procedures for addressing any form of plagiarism if they believe that a student’s work potentially violates the AIC.
What if professors suspect a student of using ChatGPT on an assignment? “If a professor suspects that ChatGPT or another generative AI platform was inappropriately used for a submitted assignment, the professor should address the concern using the procedures outlined in the Academic Integrity Code.”
Institutional & Administrative
- Muhlenberg College permits faculty to use generative AI pedagogically, but expects them to give students clear guidance about allowed uses, citation, and disclosure
- The faculty guide also says instructors should independently verify the accuracy of AI outputs before sharing them with students, and institutional data policies restrict staff and faculty from entering college data into public or external AI systems without approval
Can faculty use ChatGPT as a pedagogical tool? “Yes. Faculty should consider drafting a clear statement to students regarding their expectations about using generative AI for assignments. Such statements may consider the following: whether any use of AI is acceptable for the assignment and, if so, what level of use is acceptable; proper citation and acknowledgement; and whether a student should include a statement about how they used AI in the development of the assignment.”
Should faculty verify outputs from AI programs before sharing with students? Yes. Since AI can produce misleading and false information, it is always prudent for faculty to independently verify anything generated by AI before sharing it with students.
Muhlenberg College data must not be used with public, private, or externally hosted AI systems (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, etc.) without explicit written approval from Muhlenberg College Chief Information Security Officer (CISO).
- Muhlenberg College prohibits use of institutional data with public, private, or externally hosted AI systems unless the Chief Information Security Officer gives explicit written approval
- Any AI solution that works with Muhlenberg data must undergo security, privacy, and contract review, and the data classification policy specifically bars confidential, protected, and internal-only institutional data from being shared with public or external AI tools without approval
Muhlenberg College data must not be used with public, private, or externally hosted AI systems (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, etc.) without explicit written approval from Muhlenberg College Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). Institutional Data and Information include any data associated with the college as outlined in the Data Classification policy. Any AI solution that works with Muhlenberg data must undergo security and privacy review and have the final approval from CISO and contract review by General Counsel.
Examples of restricted and impermissible disclosure, sharing, and use of Institutional Data and Information include but are not limited to sharing or exposing Confidential and Protected data to any non-contracted third parties, whether software-as-a-service (SaaS) or otherwise, such as free services or AI applications including but not limited to ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or other large language models, repositories, or systems.
Examples of impermissible disclosure, sharing, or use of Internal Only Institutional Data and Information include but are not limited to: using with public or external artificial intelligence (AI) systems, such as ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, or similar AI tools, without explicit approval from the College Chief Information Security Officer (CISO).
- The cited sources show limited institutional AI governance rather than a broad AI strategy
- No broader institutional AI roadmap or standing AI committee is defined in the provided sources
- Muhlenberg College assigns approval authority for AI systems involving college data to the Chief Information Security Officer, requires security, privacy, and contract review for such tools, and provides faculty-facing guidance on generative AI through academic affairs materials
Muhlenberg College data must not be used with public, private, or externally hosted AI systems (e.g., ChatGPT, Bard, Claude, etc.) without explicit written approval from Muhlenberg College Chief Information Security Officer (CISO). Institutional Data and Information include any data associated with the college as outlined in the Data Classification policy. Any AI solution that works with Muhlenberg data must undergo security and privacy review and have the final approval from CISO and contract review by General Counsel.
Can faculty use ChatGPT as a pedagogical tool? “Yes. Faculty should consider drafting a clear statement to students regarding their expectations about using generative AI for assignments. Such statements may consider the following: whether any use of AI is acceptable for the assignment and, if so, what level of use is acceptable; proper citation and acknowledgement; and whether a student should include a statement about how they used AI in the development of the assignment.”
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 Muhlenberg College's AI Policies
Muhlenberg College has defined AI policies in 10 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 83%.
Muhlenberg College requires attribution when AI-generated material is used. The academic integrity code says submitting work generated wholly or partly by ChatGPT or similar tools without attribution is plagiarism, and faculty guidance directs instructors to set disclosure and citation expectations for any allowed AI use.
Muhlenberg College does not endorse AI detection tools as reliable evidence on their own. Faculty guidance says AI detectors should not be the sole basis for an allegation and recommends using them only to flag concerns that are then evaluated through established academic integrity procedures. Suspected AI-related misconduct is handled through the college’s academic integrity process and can result in penalties determined through that process.
Muhlenberg College prohibits use of institutional data with public, private, or externally hosted AI systems unless the Chief Information Security Officer gives explicit written approval. Any AI solution that works with Muhlenberg data must undergo security, privacy, and contract review, and the data classification policy specifically bars confidential, protected, and internal-only institutional data from being shared with public or external AI tools without approval.