Teaching & Learning
- Use of generative AI in coursework is at instructor discretion
- If a course policy forbids AI use, submitting AI-generated work can be treated as academic misconduct
- Reed states that faculty should clarify whether and how AI may be used in their courses, and students are responsible for understanding and following each instructor’s policy
Determining whether and how students may use AI is the responsibility of each individual instructor, and students should be alerted through the course syllabus, assignments, and class discussion.
Instructors should address the role of AI writing tools in their courses and include in the course syllabus a policy regarding student use of such tools.
When a student has not done the work he or she claims to have done, such as submitting a paper generated by an online service, an academic integrity violation has occurred.
If a student submits work generated by AI when an instructor has specifically forbidden such aid, one can argue that the student has not done the work that they claim to have done.
- Reed does not impose a single institution-wide rule for AI use in exams and assessments
- Faculty are directed to communicate course-specific AI policies in syllabi and class discussion, meaning assessment rules are governed by each instructor
- Sample syllabus language provided by Reed includes options for restricting AI in specific assignments or all work, which would cover in-class assessments as well
Determining whether and how students may use AI is the responsibility of each individual instructor, and students should be alerted through the course syllabus, assignments, and class discussion.
Instructors should address the role of AI writing tools in their courses and include in the course syllabus a policy regarding student use of such tools.
If a student submits work generated by AI when an instructor has specifically forbidden such aid, one can argue that the student has not done the work that they claim to have done.
- The college recommends keeping humans in the loop and using AI critically rather than relying on it uncritically
- Reed permits and encourages exploration of generative AI as a learning aid, including for brainstorming, revision support, tutoring-style interaction, and practice with concepts, while warning users to verify outputs and consider privacy and bias
When you use GAI in your own learning, think of it as a tutor in a box. It can answer your questions, engage in debate, and provide a rough approximation of the guidance a human tutor might give.
You can ask GAI to test your understanding or have it teach you material via examples and metaphors.
You can even use GAI to test your own abilities by comparing your work to its output.
Generative AI can be a useful learning tool to support brainstorming, critical analysis, and personalized skill development. However, students and faculty should always know the AI policy for any class or assignment and use AI critically and ethically.
There are many potential uses of generative AI as a study aid and tutor. However, in all these applications, students should always think critically and verify AI-generated information, especially given AI’s tendency to hallucinate and to perpetuate biases and stereotypes.
Students and faculty should carefully evaluate a generative AI tool before using it and should keep humans in the loop throughout the process.
- Reed’s provided sources do not set a specific standalone policy for AI-assisted coding or programming assignments
- Any such use falls under the general course-level rule that instructors decide whether and how students may use AI in their work
Determining whether and how students may use AI is the responsibility of each individual instructor, and students should be alerted through the course syllabus, assignments, and class discussion.
Instructors should address the role of AI writing tools in their courses and include in the course syllabus a policy regarding student use of such tools.
Research
- Students should follow instructor and thesis adviser direction, and any AI use in writing should be disclosed per the college's general disclosure guidance
- Reed's available sources do not define a dedicated research manuscript or thesis-specific AI policy, but guidance on using AI in the writing and revision process is available and may apply to senior thesis work
Instructors should address the role of AI writing tools in their courses and include in the course syllabus a policy regarding student use of such tools.
Any use of AI should be openly disclosed with your submission. You should include a statement at the end of the assignment that details what tools you used and where and why you used them.
- The provided sources do not otherwise define a research-specific policy for AI-based data analysis
- Reed’s security and privacy guidance restricts what institutional data may be entered into generative AI systems
- Public data may be used, internal data may be used only with caution and dean or vice president approval, and confidential or restricted data must not be input into public AI tools
Public data may be used in public GenAI systems.
Internal Data may be entered into GenAI systems with caution and approval from your area Dean or Vice President.
Confidential and Restricted data may not be entered into public GenAI systems due to risk of disclosure and uncertain data use and retention practices.
Only use GenAI systems approved by Reed or your area Dean or Vice President.
If your work with GenAI requires the use of institutional data, use this data classification guide to identify the class of data and what level of caution to apply.
- No explicit research-ethics governance for AI is stated in the supplied documents
- The provided Reed sources do not define policies on AI use in grant proposals, IRB applications, ethics declarations, or other research-integrity processes
not defined
Academic Integrity
- The college library also points students to citation guidance for AI-generated content
- These requirements are course-policy based rather than a single universal disclosure rule in the provided sources
- Reed recommends that instructors set explicit disclosure expectations for student AI use and provides sample syllabus language requiring students to disclose when and how they used AI and, in some cases, cite or append prompts and outputs
Instructors should address the role of AI writing tools in their courses and include in the course syllabus a policy regarding student use of such tools.
All use of generative AI in this course should be disclosed and cited. Any assignment submitted for this course that uses AI must include a paragraph at the end that details what AI tool was used, where in the assignment it was used, and a brief explanation of why it was used. [Instructors may additionally require students to submit the actual prompts and resulting text, perhaps by appending screenshots to the assignment.]
Any use of AI should be openly disclosed with your submission. You should include a statement at the end of the assignment that details what tools you used and where and why you used them. [Instructors may choose to additionally require students to submit the actual prompts and resulting text.] Please know that the writing process itself is an important means of refining and developing your own thoughts. The use of AI to produce complete drafts and to rewrite your work can short-circuit this process.
How do I cite or acknowledge the use of generative AI in my work?
- Reed’s provided sources focus enforcement on existing academic misconduct procedures rather than endorsing AI-detection tools
- If students submit work they did not do themselves, including AI-generated work where such use is forbidden, that may be treated as an academic integrity violation and handled under the college’s established conduct process
When a student has not done the work he or she claims to have done, such as submitting a paper generated by an online service, an academic integrity violation has occurred.
If a student submits work generated by AI when an instructor has specifically forbidden such aid, one can argue that the student has not done the work that they claim to have done.
If a faculty member suspects that a student has committed academic misconduct in a manner sufficiently egregious to warrant disciplinary action beyond what may be imposed by the faculty member, the faculty member should report such misconduct to the Judicial Board.
The judicial board has authority to hear alleged violations of the standards of conduct by students and student organizations, and to decide if a violation has occurred and sanctions warranted, up to expulsion from the college.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty and staff using AI with institutional data must follow Reed's tiered data protection rules and use only approved systems
- Reed encourages faculty to engage thoughtfully, critically, and ethically with generative AI in teaching, and requires them to set clear course-level AI policies for students via syllabi
- AI outputs must be evaluated by a human and must not be the sole or determining factor in important decisions; the college does not define specific rules for grading, recommendation letters, or administrative communications in the available sources, though additional guidance on AI in writing and revision processes is available
Instructors should address the role of AI writing tools in their courses and include in the course syllabus a policy regarding student use of such tools.
Reed encourages faculty to engage with generative AI, to think deeply about its pedagogical implications, and to use it thoughtfully, critically, and ethically.
Only use GenAI systems approved by Reed or your area Dean or Vice President.
Generative AI systems should support your work, but should not make decisions for you. Outputs from generative AI systems should be evaluated by a human and should not be the sole or determining factor in important decisions.
- Reed has explicit data protection rules for generative AI
- Users must use only Reed-approved or dean/vice-president-approved AI systems and should treat uploaded content as potentially retained, viewed, or reused by providers
- Public data may be entered into public AI tools, internal data requires caution and approval from the relevant dean or vice president, and confidential or restricted data is prohibited in public AI systems
Data entered into systems may be retained and viewed by the provider and fed into the provider’s systems to improve their models, exposing your data beyond your prompt, at a future date, and to an unknown audience.
Public data may be used in public GenAI systems.
Internal Data may be entered into GenAI systems with caution and approval from your area Dean or Vice President.
Confidential and Restricted data may not be entered into public GenAI systems due to risk of disclosure and uncertain data use and retention practices.
Only use GenAI systems approved by Reed or your area Dean or Vice President.
If your work with GenAI requires the use of institutional data, use this data classification guide to identify the class of data and what level of caution to apply.
- No formal AI governance body, institution-wide policy document, or multi-year strategic plan is described in the available sources
- Reed's institutional AI approach is expressed through a suite of guidance resources covering teaching, learning, revision, security, and privacy rather than a formal governance committee or strategic roadmap
- The college encourages thoughtful, critical, and ethical engagement with generative AI from faculty and students, provides sample syllabus language, learning and revision guidance, and security guardrails, and designates deans and vice presidents as approval authorities for non-public AI system use with institutional data
Reed encourages faculty to engage with generative AI, to think deeply about its pedagogical implications, and to use it thoughtfully, critically, and ethically.
Students and faculty should carefully evaluate a generative AI tool before using it and should keep humans in the loop throughout the process.
Only use GenAI systems approved by Reed or your area Dean or Vice President.
Generative AI can be a useful learning tool to support brainstorming, critical analysis, and personalized skill development. However, students and faculty should always know the AI policy for any class or assignment and use AI critically and ethically.
If your work with GenAI requires the use of institutional data, use this data classification guide to identify the class of data and what level of caution to apply.
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 Reed College's AI Policies
Reed College has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Reed recommends that instructors set explicit disclosure expectations for student AI use and provides sample syllabus language requiring students to disclose when and how they used AI and, in some cases, cite or append prompts and outputs. The college library also points students to citation guidance for AI-generated content. These requirements are course-policy based rather than a single universal disclosure rule in the provided sources.
Reed’s provided sources focus enforcement on existing academic misconduct procedures rather than endorsing AI-detection tools. If students submit work they did not do themselves, including AI-generated work where such use is forbidden, that may be treated as an academic integrity violation and handled under the college’s established conduct process.
Reed has explicit data protection rules for generative AI. Public data may be entered into public AI tools, internal data requires caution and approval from the relevant dean or vice president, and confidential or restricted data is prohibited in public AI systems. Users must use only Reed-approved or dean/vice-president-approved AI systems and should treat uploaded content as potentially retained, viewed, or reused by providers.