Teaching & Learning
- Use of AI in graded coursework is at instructor discretion
- Students may use AI only when the instructor allows it and within any stated limits; using AI-generated material without permission or beyond the instructor’s permitted scope is treated as academic dishonesty
Faculty determine whether and to what degree AI use is acceptable in their courses, and students should discuss AI use with faculty.
A faculty member might permit a student to use ChatGPT to brainstorm ideas and generate examples but not to write an entire paper.
In any course in which AI usage limitations have been specified, work products generated by AI are prohibited. Use of the following sources and actions are examples of academic dishonesty and therefore subject to sanctions under this code:
Writing or attempting to write a paper, assignment, report, or examination with the assistance of an unauthorized commercial term paper service or other outside source, including another student, internet source, and/or AI-generated material.
- AI use in exams and other assessments is not uniformly allowed and depends on course-level authorization
- When AI limits have been specified, using AI-generated material on an examination is prohibited and falls under academic dishonesty
In any course in which AI usage limitations have been specified, work products generated by AI are prohibited. Use of the following sources and actions are examples of academic dishonesty and therefore subject to sanctions under this code:
Writing or attempting to write a paper, assignment, report, or examination with the assistance of an unauthorized commercial term paper service or other outside source, including another student, internet source, and/or AI-generated material.
- The university acknowledges AI can support learning activities such as tutoring, research, idea generation, and language assistance
- However, whether students may use it in a course is decided by faculty, and students are directed to discuss acceptable use with their instructors
Students use AI for a variety of personal and academic purposes, such as conducting research, generating ideas, writing code, clarifying concepts, learning a language, and receiving tutoring.
Faculty determine whether and to what degree AI use is acceptable in their courses, and students should discuss AI use with faculty.
- The university recognizes AI may be used to write code, but it does not create a uniform permission rule for programming assignments
- Faculty decide whether and to what extent AI is acceptable in their courses, and unauthorized use in assignments can be treated as academic dishonesty where AI limits have been set
Students use AI for a variety of personal and academic purposes, such as conducting research, generating ideas, writing code, clarifying concepts, learning a language, and receiving tutoring.
Faculty determine whether and to what degree AI use is acceptable in their courses, and students should discuss AI use with faculty.
In any course in which AI usage limitations have been specified, work products generated by AI are prohibited.
Research
- It also says formal acknowledgement of AI use in formal settings including publications should be required when AI has been used
- The university states that AI may be used for research-related tasks such as summarizing literature, generating ideas, and reviewing writing
Faculty and students can use AI to summarize literature, generate ideas, review writing, create images, and gather data.
Formal acknowledgement of AI use in contexts like publications, grant proposals, and applications should be required when AI has been used.
- The university indicates AI can be used to gather data, but it also imposes privacy and security limits on what may be uploaded to AI platforms
- Sensitive or personally identifiable information should not be put into AI tools unless the system is private, local, secure, and approved by the university
Faculty and students can use AI to summarize literature, generate ideas, review writing, create images, and gather data.
Students, faculty, and staff should not upload any SU materials or personally identifiable information into AI systems that are accessible online, unless the AI service is private, local, secure, and approved by the university.
- It also states that humans remain responsible for checking AI outputs and for the quality and veracity of work products
- The university says formal acknowledgement of AI use should be required in research-related formal documents, specifically including publications and grant proposals
Formal acknowledgement of AI use in contexts like publications, grant proposals, and applications should be required when AI has been used.
As generative AI is known to make errors, create fictional responses, and be unreliable, all work products generated by AI need to be reviewed and verified by a human.
All work products generated by AI belong to the person responsible for prompting the AI, and the person generating these products is responsible for the quality and veracity of the work products.
Academic Integrity
- The university expects transparency about AI use
- It says formal acknowledgement of AI use should be required in publications, grant proposals, and applications, but it does not provide a detailed university-wide citation format for student coursework in the cited sources
Formal acknowledgement of AI use in contexts like publications, grant proposals, and applications should be required when AI has been used.
- The sources do not mention AI detection tools
- They do state that unauthorized AI-generated material in courses with AI restrictions is academic dishonesty and is subject to sanctions under the academic honesty code
In any course in which AI usage limitations have been specified, work products generated by AI are prohibited. Use of the following sources and actions are examples of academic dishonesty and therefore subject to sanctions under this code:
Writing or attempting to write a paper, assignment, report, or examination with the assistance of an unauthorized commercial term paper service or other outside source, including another student, internet source, and/or AI-generated material.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty and staff may use AI for work-related purposes, but they are expected to receive training and keep human responsibility over outputs
- Faculty also control acceptable student AI use in their courses, and recommendation letters must disclose AI assistance and should only be signed after human review and approval
Faculty and students can use AI to summarize literature, generate ideas, review writing, create images, and gather data.
Faculty determine whether and to what degree AI use is acceptable in their courses, and students should discuss AI use with faculty.
We should offer comprehensive training and support for students, faculty, and staff to ensure effective and secure AI use.
As generative AI is known to make errors, create fictional responses, and be unreliable, all work products generated by AI need to be reviewed and verified by a human.
If recommendation letters are drafted using AI, this use should be disclosed in the letter itself, and it should not be signed on behalf of a professor without their review and approval.
- The university restricts what users may enter into online AI systems
- Students, faculty, and staff should not upload Susquehanna materials or personally identifiable information unless the AI service is private, local, secure, and approved by the university
Students, faculty, and staff should not upload any SU materials or personally identifiable information into AI systems that are accessible online, unless the AI service is private, local, secure, and approved by the university.
- The university has an institution-level AI posture that emphasizes adoption, training, governance, and human oversight rather than banning AI
- Its board statement says the institution should embrace AI, educate the campus on effective and secure use, require disclosure in formal contexts, and keep humans accountable for outputs
We should embrace AI rather than prohibit it.
For all college-provided AI tools, training should be mandatory to ensure students, faculty, and staff know how to use them effectively and securely.
We should offer comprehensive training and support for students, faculty, and staff to ensure effective and secure AI use.
Formal acknowledgement of AI use in contexts like publications, grant proposals, and applications should be required when AI has been used.
As generative AI is known to make errors, create fictional responses, and be unreliable, all work products generated by AI need to be reviewed and verified by a human.
All work products generated by AI belong to the person responsible for prompting the AI, and the person generating these products is responsible for the quality and veracity of the work products.
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 Susquehanna University's AI Policies
Susquehanna University has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
The university expects transparency about AI use. It says formal acknowledgement of AI use should be required in publications, grant proposals, and applications, but it does not provide a detailed university-wide citation format for student coursework in the cited sources.
The sources do not mention AI detection tools. They do state that unauthorized AI-generated material in courses with AI restrictions is academic dishonesty and is subject to sanctions under the academic honesty code.
The university restricts what users may enter into online AI systems. Students, faculty, and staff should not upload Susquehanna materials or personally identifiable information unless the AI service is private, local, secure, and approved by the university.