Teaching & Learning
- Use of generative AI in coursework is generally left to instructor discretion, and students must follow the rules stated in each course syllabus or assignment
- The university frames unauthorized AI use as potentially violating academic integrity, while also allowing faculty to design assignments that either prohibit, limit, or intentionally incorporate AI with clear expectations
Faculty should state clearly in their syllabi and assignment instructions whether and how generative AI may be used.
Students should assume that using generative AI for coursework is not permitted unless explicitly authorized by the instructor.
Whether or not students can use AI on assignments should be determined by the specific class and assignment.
Using AI in ways not authorized by the instructor may constitute academic dishonesty.
- Students are expected to treat AI use as prohibited unless the instructor expressly permits it, and unauthorized use on assessments may be treated as academic dishonesty
- The university does not set a single blanket rule for all exams and assessments in the reviewed sources; instead, allowed or prohibited AI use depends on instructor direction
Students should assume that using generative AI for coursework is not permitted unless explicitly authorized by the instructor.
Faculty should state clearly in their syllabi and assignment instructions whether and how generative AI may be used.
Using AI in ways not authorized by the instructor may constitute academic dishonesty.
- The sources emphasize responsible use, critical evaluation of outputs, and not substituting AI for independent thinking
- The university encourages AI literacy and presents AI as a tool students may use for learning support, such as understanding material and developing skills, but students must still comply with instructor rules when work is tied to a course
AI can be a useful learning partner when used responsibly.
Use AI to support your learning, not replace it.
Always verify information provided by AI tools.
Students should assume that using generative AI for coursework is not permitted unless explicitly authorized by the instructor.
- No university-wide rule specifically for programming assignments is separately defined in the reviewed materials
- AI use for coding-related academic work falls under the broader course-level rule that instructors decide whether AI is allowed and under what conditions, and unauthorized use may be treated as misconduct
Whether or not students can use AI on assignments should be determined by the specific class and assignment.
Faculty should state clearly in their syllabi and assignment instructions whether and how generative AI may be used.
Using AI in ways not authorized by the instructor may constitute academic dishonesty.
Research
- AI use must be disclosed when required by publishers, and AI tools cannot be credited as authors
- The Citadel allows limited AI assistance in research writing, but researchers remain fully responsible for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of the final work
Researchers may use generative AI tools to improve readability and language of a manuscript, provided that such use is properly disclosed and does not substitute for the author’s original intellectual contribution.
Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, including any parts produced with the assistance of generative AI.
Generative AI tools may not be listed as authors or co-authors on scholarly manuscripts.
Researchers should review publisher policies and disclose the use of AI where required.
- The university permits use of AI in research data and analysis only with caution and researcher oversight
- Researchers must validate outputs, protect confidential or sensitive data, and comply with sponsor, legal, IRB, and disciplinary requirements before using AI in data-related research activities
Researchers must exercise caution when using generative AI for data analysis, coding, or interpretation of results.
Any AI-generated analysis or output must be carefully reviewed and validated by the researcher.
Sensitive, confidential, or proprietary data should not be entered into generative AI tools unless the tool has been approved for such use.
Researchers must comply with applicable laws, regulations, sponsor requirements, and IRB protocols when using generative AI in research.
- The Citadel explicitly ties AI use in research to research integrity obligations
- Researchers must disclose AI use where required, remain accountable for all submitted content, avoid entering restricted information into unapproved tools, and follow sponsor, IRB, and compliance rules, including in grant-related contexts
Researchers are responsible for maintaining the highest standards of honesty, accuracy, and integrity in all scholarly work involving generative AI.
Researchers should review publisher policies and disclose the use of AI where required.
Researchers must comply with applicable laws, regulations, sponsor requirements, and IRB protocols when using generative AI in research.
Sensitive, confidential, or proprietary data should not be entered into generative AI tools unless the tool has been approved for such use.
Academic Integrity
- In research contexts, researchers must disclose AI use when publishers or other applicable rules require it
- Disclosure of AI use is required when faculty or assignment instructions call for it, and the university directs students to acknowledge AI assistance appropriately
Faculty should state clearly in their syllabi and assignment instructions whether and how generative AI may be used.
If AI use is permitted, students should acknowledge how they used it, if required by the instructor.
Researchers should review publisher policies and disclose the use of AI where required.
Authors are fully responsible for the content of their manuscript, including any parts produced with the assistance of generative AI.
- The emphasis is on instructor authorization and academic misconduct enforcement rather than on mandating a particular detection tool
- The reviewed sources state that unauthorized AI use may constitute academic dishonesty and will be handled through existing academic integrity processes, but they do not establish a specific university-wide AI detection regime
Using AI in ways not authorized by the instructor may constitute academic dishonesty.
Students should assume that using generative AI for coursework is not permitted unless explicitly authorized by the instructor.
Institutional & Administrative
- Faculty and staff are encouraged to use AI thoughtfully in teaching and administrative work, but they are expected to maintain human judgment and accountability
- Faculty must clearly communicate course-level AI rules to students, and institutional guidance stresses ethical use, review of outputs, and caution with sensitive information
Faculty should state clearly in their syllabi and assignment instructions whether and how generative AI may be used.
Microsoft Copilot is The Citadel’s official generative AI tool.
Users must not enter sensitive, confidential, or restricted information into AI tools unless approved by the institution.
Human oversight is essential when using generative AI.
- Across both administrative and research guidance, data protection and tool approval are mandatory conditions for AI use
- The Citadel designates Microsoft Copilot as its official generative AI tool and restricts entry of sensitive, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise restricted information into AI systems unless institutionally approved
Microsoft Copilot is The Citadel’s official generative AI tool.
Users must not enter sensitive, confidential, or restricted information into AI tools unless approved by the institution.
Sensitive, confidential, or proprietary data should not be entered into generative AI tools unless the tool has been approved for such use.
- The Citadel has an institution-level AI governance and strategy framework built around a provost-appointed task force, formal reports, campus guidance pages, and official tool adoption
- Its published materials present AI adoption as a coordinated institutional initiative focused on ethical use, literacy, governance, and ongoing integration into education and operations
A Report on Generative AI Prepared by the Provost-appointed The Citadel’s Generative AI Taskforce
Microsoft Copilot is The Citadel’s official generative AI tool.
The Citadel releases report on generative artificial intelligence
Embracing AI in Education at The Citadel
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 The Citadel's AI Policies
The Citadel has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
Disclosure of AI use is required when faculty or assignment instructions call for it, and the university directs students to acknowledge AI assistance appropriately. In research contexts, researchers must disclose AI use when publishers or other applicable rules require it.
The reviewed sources state that unauthorized AI use may constitute academic dishonesty and will be handled through existing academic integrity processes, but they do not establish a specific university-wide AI detection regime. The emphasis is on instructor authorization and academic misconduct enforcement rather than on mandating a particular detection tool.
The Citadel designates Microsoft Copilot as its official generative AI tool and restricts entry of sensitive, confidential, proprietary, or otherwise restricted information into AI systems unless institutionally approved. Across both administrative and research guidance, data protection and tool approval are mandatory conditions for AI use.