Teaching & Learning
- Separately, USC states that representing AI-authored material as a student’s own work is considered plagiarism
- USC indicates that whether generative AI is permitted for coursework and assignments is determined by the instructor (including the ability to encourage, permit for specific assignments, or prohibit entirely), and instructors are encouraged to set expectations in the syllabus
As Generative AI tools like ChatGPT become more accessible, instructors are encouraged to set clear expectations around proper usage.
University policy states that work authored by another (including material created by ChatGPT and other Generative AI tools) but represented as the student’s work, whether paraphrased or copied verbatim or in near-verbatim form, is considered plagiarism.
The Office of Academic Integrity encourages instructors to outline expectations in their course syllabus and identify if (and to what extent) using Generative AI is appropriate. Whether you decide to encourage the use of Generative AI in your course, permit its use for specific assignments, or prohibit the use of it entirely, sample syllabus language can be viewed at
- USC also states that representing AI-authored material as a student’s own work is considered plagiarism
- USC’s provided sources indicate instructors should set expectations for generative AI use (including the ability to prohibit it), but they do not define a university-wide, exam-specific rule in the accessible text
As Generative AI tools like ChatGPT become more accessible, instructors are encouraged to set clear expectations around proper usage.
University policy states that work authored by another (including material created by ChatGPT and other Generative AI tools) but represented as the student’s work, whether paraphrased or copied verbatim or in near-verbatim form, is considered plagiarism.
The Office of Academic Integrity encourages instructors to outline expectations in their course syllabus and identify if (and to what extent) using Generative AI is appropriate. Whether you decide to encourage the use of Generative AI in your course, permit its use for specific assignments, or prohibit the use of it entirely, sample syllabus language can be viewed at
- The academic integrity guidance emphasizes that instructors should set expectations for proper AI usage
- USC’s AI tool guidance frames AI use as supporting learning and encourages users to review AI output and avoid sharing sensitive data
These USC policies encourage students, faculty, and staff to protect privacy and follow data classification standards while supporting learning, research, and operations.
Always review AI-generated output for factual accuracy, relevance, and appropriateness.
As Generative AI tools like ChatGPT become more accessible, instructors are encouraged to set clear expectations around proper usage.
- USC’s provided sources do not define a programming-assignment-specific policy for AI code generation
- USC’s academic integrity guidance states instructors may encourage, permit, or prohibit generative AI use and should specify expectations; and USC’s general AI policy requires users to check AI outputs for accuracy and completeness
The Office of Academic Integrity encourages instructors to outline expectations in their course syllabus and identify if (and to what extent) using Generative AI is appropriate. Whether you decide to encourage the use of Generative AI in your course, permit its use for specific assignments, or prohibit the use of it entirely, sample syllabus language can be viewed at
Covered Individuals are responsible for checking outputs from Generative AI tools for accuracy and completeness, and are responsible for any output generated by their use of an AI Tool when that output is used in USC work product.
Research
- USC’s enterprise AI tools FAQ also advises transparency about where and how AI contributed to written work product, including written communications
- USC’s general AI policy states that users are responsible for checking generative AI output for accuracy and completeness and are responsible for AI-generated output used in USC work product
Covered Individuals are responsible for checking outputs from Generative AI tools for accuracy and completeness, and are responsible for any output generated by their use of an AI Tool when that output is used in USC work product.
Always review AI-generated output for factual accuracy, completeness, relevance, and appropriateness and be transparent about where and how AI contributed to any written work product, including written communications.
- USC’s general AI policy establishes data-classification-based rules for entering USC data into AI tools, distinguishing between “Individual AI Tools” and “USC Enterprise AI Tools.” It prohibits entering Internal Use Only, Confidential, and Restricted Confidential data into Individual AI Tools, restricts use of Confidential and Restricted Confidential data in enterprise tools, and requires written approval for Restricted Confidential data in any AI tool (and for Confidential data in enterprise tools unless advance written approval is provided)
Data Type Individual AI Tools USC Enterprise AI Tools
Public Data (e.g., published research, public website content)PERMITTED PERMITTED
Internal Use Only (e.g., student IDs, non-public memos, in-process contracts)NOT PERMITTED PERMITTED (use with caution and in compliance with other University policies and department rules)
Confidential Data (e.g., student education records protected by FERPA, health or medical information protected by HIPAA, nonpublic personal or financial information)NOT PERMITTED NOT PERMITTED (unless advance written approval provided by Office of Ethics & Compliance)
Restricted Confidential Data (e.g., ITAR/EAR export-controlled data, CUI, sponsor restricted data)NOT PERMITTED NOT PERMITTED (unless advance written approval provided by Office of Ethics & Compliance)
No Internal Use Only Data, Confidential Data, or Restricted Confidential Data may be input into any Individual AI Tools.
Restricted Confidential Data may not be entered into any AI Tool, including USC Enterprise AI Tools, unless expressly approved in writing by the Office of Ethics and Compliance (OEC).
- It also requires users to check AI outputs for accuracy and completeness and holds users responsible for AI-generated output used in USC work product
- USC’s general AI policy states that compliance with the AI policy and use of enterprise AI tools does not remove obligations to comply with other applicable policies, including guidance issued by the Office of Research Integrity and other unit-specific requirements
Covered Individuals are responsible for checking outputs from Generative AI tools for accuracy and completeness, and are responsible for any output generated by their use of an AI Tool when that output is used in USC work product.
The use of USC Enterprise AI Tools (rather than Individual AI Tools) or compliance with this Policy does not relieve an individual from their responsibility to comply will other applicable policies, including but not limited to the Integrity and Accountability Code, Faculty Handbook, Student Handbook, guidance issued by the Office of Research Integrity, and any other specific Department, School, or Unit, or course requirements.
Academic Integrity
- USC’s academic integrity guidance states that AI-authored material represented as the student’s work is considered plagiarism
- USC’s enterprise AI tools FAQ further states users should be transparent about where and how AI contributed to written work product (including written communications)
University policy states that work authored by another (including material created by ChatGPT and other Generative AI tools) but represented as the student’s work, whether paraphrased or copied verbatim or in near-verbatim form, is considered plagiarism.
Always review AI-generated output for factual accuracy, completeness, relevance, and appropriateness and be transparent about where and how AI contributed to any written work product, including written communications.
- The guidance also states identifying information should be removed before sharing student work with an AI platform to avoid violating FERPA
- USC guidance states that no tool can reliably determine whether work was generated by AI and advises instructors to use caution with AI detection tools, prioritize professional judgment, and inform students explicitly if AI detection software will be used
No tool can reliably determine whether a specific piece of work was generated by AI.
Instructors should exercise caution when using AI detection tools and prioritize their own professional judgment when evaluating student work.
For example, they cannot definitively identify AI-generated content and have been known to produce false positives, which can unfairly implicate students.
If you plan to use AI detection software on student work, students should be explicitly informed of this. It is also important to remove all identifying information before the work is shared with an AI platform to avoid violating FERPA.
Institutional & Administrative
- USC’s ChatGPT Edu guidance and enterprise AI tools FAQ also emphasize adhering to USC privacy/protection and acceptable use policies and avoiding exposure of confidential information
- USC’s generative AI policy applies to faculty and staff and states they are responsible for checking AI outputs for accuracy and completeness and are responsible for AI-generated output used in USC work product
This policy applies to all:
* University faculty members (including part-time and visiting faculty)
* Staff and other employees (such as postdoctoral scholars, postdoctoral fellows, and student workers)
Covered Individuals are responsible for checking outputs from Generative AI tools for accuracy and completeness, and are responsible for any output generated by their use of an AI Tool when that output is used in USC work product.
All AI users must avoid activities that disrupt university systems, expose confidential information, or violate copyright, intellectual property, or academic integrity.
- It also states departments/schools/units may not acquire individual AI tools without consulting designated USC offices and that USC enterprise AI tools are listed on the ITS website and assessed by USC’s Office of Cybersecurity
- USC’s generative AI policy sets explicit rules based on data classification and distinguishes between individual AI tools and USC enterprise AI tools, with prohibitions on entering Internal Use Only, Confidential, and Restricted Confidential data into individual AI tools, and restrictions/approval requirements for sensitive data in any AI tool
This Policy provides guidance to the USC community for the use of the University’s enterprise-grade Generative Artificial Intelligence (Gen AI) tools rather than personal subscriptions and provides guidance regarding appropriate use of USC data with those tools.
Data Type Individual AI Tools USC Enterprise AI Tools
Public Data (e.g., published research, public website content)PERMITTED PERMITTED
Internal Use Only (e.g., student IDs, non-public memos, in-process contracts)NOT PERMITTED PERMITTED (use with caution and in compliance with other University policies and department rules)
Confidential Data (e.g., student education records protected by FERPA, health or medical information protected by HIPAA, nonpublic personal or financial information)NOT PERMITTED NOT PERMITTED (unless advance written approval provided by Office of Ethics & Compliance)
Restricted Confidential Data (e.g., ITAR/EAR export-controlled data, CUI, sponsor restricted data)NOT PERMITTED NOT PERMITTED (unless advance written approval provided by Office of Ethics & Compliance)
No Internal Use Only Data, Confidential Data, or Restricted Confidential Data may be input into any Individual AI Tools.
Restricted Confidential Data may not be entered into any AI Tool, including USC Enterprise AI Tools, unless expressly approved in writing by the Office of Ethics and Compliance (OEC).
Departments, schools, and units may not acquire Individual AI Tools without first consulting the Office of Cybersecurity, Office of Ethics and Compliance, and the Office of the General Counsel.
USC Enterprise AI Tools
AI Tools procured, integrated, and endorsed by the University for institutional use as specified on the ITS website. These tools have been assessed by USC’s Office of Cybersecurity.
- USC’s enterprise AI tools FAQ frames institutionally supported AI tools as optional and states the FAQs are intended as guidance rather than prescriptive direction to faculty on teaching, assessment, or course design
- USC’s generative AI policy describes institution-level governance mechanisms for sensitive-data approvals and tool acquisition, including requiring written approval by the Office of Ethics and Compliance for restricted confidential data in AI tools and requiring departments to consult specific university offices before acquiring individual AI tools
Restricted Confidential Data may not be entered into any AI Tool, including USC Enterprise AI Tools, unless expressly approved in writing by the Office of Ethics and Compliance (OEC).
Such approval will be granted only after OEC, in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel, the Office of Cybersecurity, and other appropriate University offices, confirms that the proposed use complies with applicable legal requirements, including export control laws and regulations (ITAR and EAR), NSPM-33, relevant NIST standards, and sponsor requirements.
Departments, schools, and units may not acquire Individual AI Tools without first consulting the Office of Cybersecurity, Office of Ethics and Compliance, and the Office of the General Counsel.
The following questions and answers are intended to guide USC students, faculty and staff in understanding what AI tools are institutionally supported at USC. These FAQs are not intended to be prescriptive to faculty on how they should teach, assess or design coursework. The use of USC-Enterprise AI tools is optional.
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 Southern California's AI Policies
University of Southern California has defined AI policies in 12 of 12 categories, with an overall coverage score of 100%.
USC’s academic integrity guidance states that AI-authored material represented as the student’s work is considered plagiarism. USC’s enterprise AI tools FAQ further states users should be transparent about where and how AI contributed to written work product (including written communications).
USC guidance states that no tool can reliably determine whether work was generated by AI and advises instructors to use caution with AI detection tools, prioritize professional judgment, and inform students explicitly if AI detection software will be used. The guidance also states identifying information should be removed before sharing student work with an AI platform to avoid violating FERPA.
USC’s generative AI policy sets explicit rules based on data classification and distinguishes between individual AI tools and USC enterprise AI tools, with prohibitions on entering Internal Use Only, Confidential, and Restricted Confidential data into individual AI tools, and restrictions/approval requirements for sensitive data in any AI tool. It also states departments/schools/units may not acquire individual AI tools without consulting designated USC offices and that USC enterprise AI tools are listed on the ITS website and assessed by USC’s Office of Cybersecurity.