Teaching & Learning
- Texas Christian University leaves student use of generative AI in coursework and assignments to instructor discretion
- TCU also states that unauthorized use can be treated as academic misconduct if it departs from the instructor's stated policy
- The university provides optional syllabus language with three possible positions: broad allowance within parameters, limited use only with case-by-case instructor permission, or complete prohibition
The purpose of this statement is to create open dialogue and to encourage faculty to be specific and clear with students about the use of AI in their courses. There is no implied recommendation by the Faculty Senate as to which syllabus statement instructors should use.
If your course allows students to use AI software: This course assumes that students may use generative AI programs (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-E, etc.) and search engines (e.g. Google, Bing, etc.) for some assignments/projects. If AI use is acceptable, students should stay within the guidelines of each assignment and cite the use of any AI software or search engine when and where appropriate.
If your course allows students to use AI software with your specific permission: This course assumes that students may NOT use generative AI programs (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-E, etc.) or search engines (e.g. Google, Bing, etc.) for assignments/projects in this course unless explicitly noted. If students would like to use AI software or search engines, they should ask for permission first.
If your course does not allow students to use AI software: This course assumes that students may NOT use generative AI programs (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-E, etc.) or search engines (e.g. Google, Bing, etc.) for assignments/projects in this course. Using these technologies would be considered a violation of TCU’s Academic Conduct Policy.
- TCU does not provide a distinct university-wide rule specifically for AI use in exams or quizzes in the reviewed sources
- Instead, assessment-related AI use falls under instructor-set course policies, and violating those stated rules may constitute academic misconduct
There is no implied recommendation by the Faculty Senate as to which syllabus statement instructors should use.
The use of unauthorized assistance on any assignment or examination, including, but not limited to, use of another’s quiz, test or exam answers and/or copying from another student in the course or from a student in another course.
- The materials focus on instructor choices for course assignments rather than independent study use
- TCU's reviewed sources do not define a university-wide policy on student use of AI for ungraded studying, tutoring, or personal learning support
not defined
- TCU does not state a separate institution-wide rule for AI code generation or programming assistance in the reviewed sources
- Any use in coding coursework appears to be governed by the instructor's course policy on AI tools for assignments and projects
The purpose of this statement is to create open dialogue and to encourage faculty to be specific and clear with students about the use of AI in their courses.
This course assumes that students may use generative AI programs (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-E, etc.) and search engines (e.g. Google, Bing, etc.) for some assignments/projects.
This course assumes that students may NOT use generative AI programs (e.g. ChatGPT, Dall-E, etc.) or search engines (e.g. Google, Bing, etc.) for assignments/projects in this course unless explicitly noted.
Research
- The reviewed TCU sources do not define a policy on using AI to draft, edit, or format research papers, theses, dissertations, or manuscripts
not defined
- The reviewed TCU sources do not define a policy on using AI for research data collection, analysis, statistical processing, synthetic data generation, or interpretation of results
not defined
- The reviewed TCU sources do not define explicit research-integrity rules for AI in grant proposals, IRB submissions, ethics disclosures, or related research compliance documents
not defined
Academic Integrity
- TCU requires disclosure and citation of AI use when a course allows it and the assignment calls for attribution
- The university's model syllabus language directs students to cite any AI software or search engine use where appropriate, but this expectation is tied to course-level policies rather than a single uniform requirement across all work
If AI use is acceptable, students should stay within the guidelines of each assignment and cite the use of any AI software or search engine when and where appropriate.
Academic misconduct is any act that illegally, improperly or unfairly attempts to affect the outcome of a student’s academic standing.
- TCU's reviewed sources do not state a university position on AI detection software
- They do state that using AI contrary to an instructor's syllabus rule can be treated as a violation of the Academic Conduct Policy, and academic misconduct is handled under the university's established conduct procedures and sanctions framework
Using these technologies would be considered a violation of TCU’s Academic Conduct Policy.
Academic misconduct is any act that illegally, improperly or unfairly attempts to affect the outcome of a student’s academic standing.
Examples of academic misconduct include, but are not limited to:
The use of unauthorized assistance on any assignment or examination, including, but not limited to, use of another’s quiz, test or exam answers and/or copying from another student in the course or from a student in another course.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty are also encouraged to state clearly in their syllabi how students may or may not use AI in their courses
- TCU provides faculty and staff guidance allowing AI use in certain administrative and communications functions with human oversight and privacy safeguards
- Marketing and communications guidance permits AI-assisted drafting, brainstorming, summaries, and editing, but requires fact-checking, editing, transparency where needed, and compliance with confidentiality and brand standards
The purpose of this statement is to create open dialogue and to encourage faculty to be specific and clear with students about the use of AI in their courses.
There is no implied recommendation by the Faculty Senate as to which syllabus statement instructors should use.
AI can support content development, but must not replace strategic thinking, editorial judgment or brand integrity.
Humans remain responsible for the output.
Use AI to assist, not replace. AI may be used to brainstorm ideas, draft outlines, summarize transcripts or refine language—but all outputs must be reviewed, edited and approved by a TCU communications professional before publication.
Never enter private, confidential or proprietary TCU information into an AI tool unless it has been approved for that purpose.
Fact-check and verify all content. AI-generated text may be inaccurate, outdated or misleading. All content must be reviewed for factual accuracy, alignment with TCU messaging, and adherence to editorial standards.
- TCU instructs staff using AI in marketing and communications not to input private, confidential, or proprietary university information into AI tools unless the tool has been approved for that purpose
- The reviewed sources therefore impose a data-protection restriction and indicate that approval status matters for handling sensitive institutional information, but they do not provide a broader university-wide approved-platform list in the materials reviewed
Never enter private, confidential or proprietary TCU information into an AI tool unless it has been approved for that purpose.
Do not upload confidential or FERPA-protected information into AI platforms.
When using AI to support segmentation, targeting or CRM workflows, ensure all data use complies with TCU privacy policies and applicable regulations.
- TCU has established university-level AI governance and strategy structures
- The reviewed sources show an institutional effort focused on guidance, committee-based oversight, and ongoing policy development rather than a single consolidated AI code
- The university maintains an AI website describing principles and resources, the provost has announced policy activity on AI, and the Faculty Senate approved the creation of an Integrative Artificial Intelligence Committee to coordinate governance, recommendations, and campus-wide engagement
The mission of TCU’s Integrative Artificial Intelligence Committee is to foster strategic integration of artificial intelligence across the University’s academic and administrative functions. The committee will evaluate emerging AI technologies and trends, provide recommendations on best practices for responsible and ethical AI use, and support innovation in teaching, research, and service.
The committee shall serve in an advisory capacity to the Faculty Senate and other university leadership bodies on matters related to AI policy and implementation.
This website aims to help Horned Frogs understand the opportunities and the challenges of this evolving technology and how it can be thoughtfully incorporated into our studies, work and creativity.
The rapid advancement of Generative Artificial Intelligence has opened up exciting opportunities for innovation across higher education.
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 Texas Christian University's AI Policies
Texas Christian University has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
TCU requires disclosure and citation of AI use when a course allows it and the assignment calls for attribution. The university's model syllabus language directs students to cite any AI software or search engine use where appropriate, but this expectation is tied to course-level policies rather than a single uniform requirement across all work.
TCU's reviewed sources do not state a university position on AI detection software. They do state that using AI contrary to an instructor's syllabus rule can be treated as a violation of the Academic Conduct Policy, and academic misconduct is handled under the university's established conduct procedures and sanctions framework.
TCU instructs staff using AI in marketing and communications not to input private, confidential, or proprietary university information into AI tools unless the tool has been approved for that purpose. The reviewed sources therefore impose a data-protection restriction and indicate that approval status matters for handling sensitive institutional information, but they do not provide a broader university-wide approved-platform list in the materials reviewed.