Teaching & Learning
- In the law school, AI-generated substantive content in written work submitted for credit is prohibited unless an instructor explicitly permits it in writing, and disclosure is required
- For general academic writing, AI may be used for ideation and for producing portions of student writing only with attribution, but generating writing without substantial original student contribution is not acceptable
With the rise of AI writing assistants, students must ensure that they use this new technology ethically and honestly.
However, using AI to generate writing or compositions without substantial original contribution from the student is
not acceptable.
AI can be used to produce
portions of student writing,
but all generated text must
be attributed.
3. No AGC may be included in written work submitted for credit in either
the JD or any of the Masters of Laws programs, unless the instructor
explicitly permits such use in writing. If there is a course syllabus, the
permission must be granted in the syllabus. If there is no syllabus, such as
in the supervision of journal comments, the permission must be granted in
a written communication.
4. In any submission of written work for credit, students must disclose the
use of AI tools or any AGC included in their submissions, as specified in
the course syllabus, or if there is no syllabus, such as in the supervision of
journal comments, in a written communication.
- Faculty are advised to include explicit policy statements about AI use for exams in their syllabi
- The Law School's guidance for faculty recommends prohibiting the use of generative AI tools on any exam, whether in-class or take-home, unless expressly permitted
Sample Syllabus Language: "AI use during exams, whether in-class or take home, is prohibited."
Sample Syllabus Language (More Restrictive): "Students may not use any generative AI program or tool on any exam or other graded assessment in this course unless I have given you express permission to do so."
- USD states that AI can be used to support student learning rather than replace it
- The examples provided allow brainstorming, exploring topics and ideas, considering counterarguments, and using AI suggestions to improve writing, with an expectation that students review AI-generated ideas and text for accuracy
Facilitating
brainstorming
Exploring new
topics/ideas with AI-assisted writing
Examining potential
counterarguments or
opposing points of view
Reseeing writing by
taking suggestions from
AI assistants to make
improvements
Reviewing all AI-generated ideas and text
for accuracy
AI can be used to augment
the student learning process,
not replace it. Some ethical
uses of AI include:
Research
- In research, the University Research Council allows generative AI to aid authorship, but requires acknowledgment and attribution consistent with disciplinary norms
- It also states that researchers remain ultimately responsible for the quality, accuracy, sourcing, and disclosure of AI use, and notes that generative AI generally does not satisfy authorship standards for published work
6. Many publishers, including Elsevier, require authors to meet criteria including
accountability, responsibility and providing approval of the work to be published.
The probability of generative AI systems, like ChatGPT, to fulfill the requirements
of authorship is low. For example, Elsevier’s authorship policy asserts that
generative AI and AI-assisted technologies cannot be recognized as an author
on a published work.
7. When utilizing generative AI to aid in authorship, it is important to acknowledge
and attribute the contribution of the generative AI tools in a manner that aligns
with academic norms in your respective field.
11. The norms for the appropriate use of generative AI are constantly evolving, and
vary enormously depending on application, context, and discipline. Individuals
participating in the proposal, evaluation, execution, or distribution of research are
accountable for acquainting themselves with the policies and standards that
regulate the utilization of generative AI in their studies. They hold the ultimate
responsibility for the quality and dissemination of their work, including properly
attributing ideas and credit, ensuring the accuracy of facts, relying on authentic
sources, and appropriately disclosing the use of AI in research.
- It also requires researchers to cross-validate AI-generated content, investigate and acknowledge bias, and avoid relying solely on generative AI for research decision-making
- The research guidance warns against entering confidential or regulated data into externally sourced generative AI tools unless confidentiality is legally and technically assured
1. Generative AI tools do not comply with regulations and laws designed to ensure
the confidentiality of private information, such as the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA). As such, do not place federal, state, or USD confidential
data, which includes student information, into an externally sourced generative AI
tool, unless there are legal and technical guarantees that assure the
confidentiality of the data.
3. Content generated from AI tools may be inaccurate or biased. Generative AI has
a tendency to “hallucinate” by creating sources that do not exist or facts that are
not true or verifiable. It is important to cross-validate content provided using other
reliable resources.
4. Related, AI-generated output is created from previously existing data and will
reflect the biases and other limitations of that data, including biases associated
with race, ethnicity, socioeconomics, disability, language, and other axes of
marginalization and/or privilege. These biases should thoroughly be investigated
and acknowledged.
8. Do not rely solely on generative AI for decision-making purposes. Utilize its
findings to inform your research, while taking into consideration other factors and
evidence when making decisions.
- The University Research Council strongly recommends discussing proposed research uses of generative AI with co-investigators, collaborators, and field experts before starting a project
- It also places responsibility on people involved in proposal, evaluation, execution, or distribution of research to know the governing standards, disclose AI use appropriately, and ensure responsible and ethical use across research teams and external partners
Prior to initiating any research project involving generative AI, it is strongly
recommended that you discuss the appropriateness of using the technology with your
co-investigators, collaborators, and field experts.
10. When collaborating with vendors or subcontractors, it is important to inquire
about their practices of using generative AI. Any resulting agreement should
include additional terms and conditions to ensure responsible and ethical
utilization of generative AI tools by all organizations involved.
11. The norms for the appropriate use of generative AI are constantly evolving, and
vary enormously depending on application, context, and discipline. Individuals
participating in the proposal, evaluation, execution, or distribution of research are
accountable for acquainting themselves with the policies and standards that
regulate the utilization of generative AI in their studies. They hold the ultimate
responsibility for the quality and dissemination of their work, including properly
attributing ideas and credit, ensuring the accuracy of facts, relying on authentic
sources, and appropriately disclosing the use of AI in research.
12. Those in supervisory roles for research activities should ensure that all members
of the team comprehend both opportunities and responsibilities associated with
the use of generative AI. These responsibilities apply to all members of the
research community, including faculty, students, staff, postdoctoral research
scholars, and other research trainees.
Academic Integrity
- USD requires attribution for AI-generated content used in student writing and directs students to APA guidance for citing generative AI tools
- In the law school, students must disclose use of AI tools or AI-generated content in written work for credit as specified by the syllabus or written communication, and in research the University Research Council says AI contributions should be acknowledged and disclosed according to field norms
Attributing all AI-generated content
included in student
writing. Please consult
APA guidelines to cite
generative AI tools
AI can be used to produce
portions of student writing,
but all generated text must
be attributed.
4. In any submission of written work for credit, students must disclose the
use of AI tools or any AGC included in their submissions, as specified in
the course syllabus, or if there is no syllabus, such as in the supervision of
journal comments, in a written communication.
7. When utilizing generative AI to aid in authorship, it is important to acknowledge
and attribute the contribution of the generative AI tools in a manner that aligns
with academic norms in your respective field.
11. The norms for the appropriate use of generative AI are constantly evolving, and
vary enormously depending on application, context, and discipline. Individuals
participating in the proposal, evaluation, execution, or distribution of research are
accountable for acquainting themselves with the policies and standards that
regulate the utilization of generative AI in their studies. They hold the ultimate
responsibility for the quality and dissemination of their work, including properly
attributing ideas and credit, ensuring the accuracy of facts, relying on authentic
sources, and appropriately disclosing the use of AI in research.
- Students are offered Turnitin Draft Coach for self-checking similarity
- In the law school, failure to disclose AI use is treated as plagiarism
- The research guidance notes that federal agencies may use detection tools
Currently, USD does not have a university-wide license for generative AI content detection software, nor does the university endorse using these tools to determine if a student has committed academic dishonesty. These tools have been proven to be unreliable and inaccurate, often producing false positives (and false negatives).
The failure to disclose the use of AI tools or AGC, as well as any other representation of AGC as student-drafted content, will be treated as plagiarism, as defined in Section I.1.d of the Law School’s Honor Code.
Institutional & Administrative
- In research, supervisors must ensure their teams understand AI responsibilities
- Faculty are advised to be mindful of data privacy and copyright when using AI in their professional work
- The university provides extensive guidance for faculty encouraging them to set clear course policies, design AI-resistant assignments, and be transparent with students about their own AI use for tasks like creating course materials
How are YOU using generative AI in your teaching? Are you using it to help you write your syllabus or assignment prompts? Are you using it to help you grade? We recommend being transparent with students about your own use of GenAI.
The CEE (Center for Educational Excellence) has also put together a resource for faculty about generative AI that includes...Assignment and assessment design ideas to encourage academic integrity.
When using generative AI for your professional work, it is important to be mindful of...Data security and privacy...Copyright.
- USD research guidance prohibits putting federal, state, or USD confidential data, including student information, into externally sourced generative AI tools unless legal and technical guarantees protect confidentiality
- The provided student-facing materials also identify Google's AI products, including Gemini and NotebookLM, as USD's preferred or available AI tools, while noting that students may still use non-Google products and that some online programs do not permit AI use
1. Generative AI tools do not comply with regulations and laws designed to ensure
the confidentiality of private information, such as the Health Insurance Portability
and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) and the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act (FERPA). As such, do not place federal, state, or USD confidential
data, which includes student information, into an externally sourced generative AI
tool, unless there are legal and technical guarantees that assure the
confidentiality of the data.
● ITS recommends Google's AI products as USD's
preferred set of AI tools.
○ Gemini
○ NotebookLM
● You may still use other non Google AI products
USD students have access to Google's AI products including Gemini, and NotebookLM. When using your USD
credentials, they are provided free of charge.
Please note, not all USD Online programs permit the use of AI. Please consult yourstudent handbook to confirm if AI usage
is acceptable in your program.
- The provided sources also point users to AI Training @ USD for general and USD-specific training materials, but no broader university-wide AI strategy or roadmap is explicitly defined in the supplied documents
- USD has research-specific AI governance through guidance approved by the University Research Council, which is described as including representatives from each academic unit and issuing guidance to the USD research community
Approved by the University Research Council, May 2024
To address these and other
concerns, the University Research Council, consisting of representatives from each
academic unit, has provided the following guidance to all members of the USD research
community.
● Visit the AI Training @ USD to access general and
USD-specific AI training materials.20
Visit the AI Training @ USD to access general and USD-specific AI
training materials.
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 University of San Diego's AI Policies
University of San Diego has defined AI policies in 11 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 92%.
USD requires attribution for AI-generated content used in student writing and directs students to APA guidance for citing generative AI tools. In the law school, students must disclose use of AI tools or AI-generated content in written work for credit as specified by the syllabus or written communication, and in research the University Research Council says AI contributions should be acknowledged and disclosed according to field norms.
USD does not have a university-wide license for generative AI detection software and does not endorse using these tools for academic dishonesty cases, citing their unreliability. Students are offered Turnitin Draft Coach for self-checking similarity. In the law school, failure to disclose AI use is treated as plagiarism. The research guidance notes that federal agencies may use detection tools.
USD research guidance prohibits putting federal, state, or USD confidential data, including student information, into externally sourced generative AI tools unless legal and technical guarantees protect confidentiality. The provided student-facing materials also identify Google's AI products, including Gemini and NotebookLM, as USD's preferred or available AI tools, while noting that students may still use non-Google products and that some online programs do not permit AI use.