University AI Policy Checker

Boston College publishes responsible-use guidance but states that the Provost's Office has not imposed one coursework-wide AI rule. Instructors and departments are expected to create their own policies.

BU provides student and classroom guidance while allowing academic units and instructors to define acceptable uses. Its Faculty of Computing & Data Sciences also operates a more permissive policy with mandatory credit.

Brown applies its Academic Code to unapproved AI use and encourages instructors to create explicit classroom policies. Some Brown programs state that AI must be expressly approved and clearly cited.

CMU treats generative AI as unauthorized assistance unless an instructor permits it. The university deliberately allows instructors to define what is authorized in each course.

CWRU's academic-integrity policy expressly includes generative AI used without instructor permission. School and course documents add more detailed restrictions.

Columbia has a university-wide policy requiring transparency when AI contributes to written materials or work product. Academic use remains subject to instructor guidance, and some schools establish stricter default prohibitions.

Cornell expects students to follow course and assignment instructions, document or attribute permitted AI use where required, and seek clarification before using a tool when the rule is uncertain.

Duke classifies unauthorized generative AI as a form of cheating under the Duke Community Standard. Instructors are expected to state whether AI is prohibited, allowed with attribution, or acceptable for selected tasks.

Emory requires students to confirm whether AI use is permitted in the relevant syllabus, program handbook, or faculty instructions. Unauthorized generation of assignment content may constitute plagiarism or unauthorized assistance.

Georgetown's central guidelines place AI use inside existing university policies, but departments can set stricter rules. The German Department, for example, prohibits AI and translation tools for coursework unless expressly directed.

Georgia Tech now has an institute policy for AI in academic and research contexts, while programs and instructors continue to define permitted classroom uses.

Harvard supports responsible experimentation with generative AI, but its central guidance does not create one permission rule for every class. Schools and instructors define what is allowed, and some units publish more specific requirements.

IU applies its existing academic-misconduct code and asks instructors to state more specific generative AI expectations in their syllabi.

MIT asks users to be transparent about generative AI use and comply with Institute and local policies. Teaching guidance offers multiple course-policy models, from prohibition to permission with citation or case-by-case approval.

MSU tells students to ask before using AI and to follow syllabus or assignment instructions. Colleges such as Osteopathic Medicine add professionalism, patient-safety, and privacy rules.

NYU frames unauthorized or uncredited AI-generated work as an authorship and academic-integrity problem. Faculty can approve AI for specific assignments and define how it must be acknowledged.

Northwestern makes students responsible for understanding instructor rules, which may vary by course and even by assignment. Unauthorized use can be treated as cheating or plagiarism, while permitted use may require disclosure and attribution.

Ohio State tells students to use GenAI for coursework only with each instructor's explicit permission. Programs may add detailed documentation and citation requirements.

Penn State provides detailed model rules: AI is prohibited for exam questions, while permitted assignment use may require in-text citation and listing the tool as a sourced tool.

Princeton prohibits presenting AI output as a student’s own work. When an instructor permits AI for activities such as brainstorming or outlining, the student must disclose the use and follow any course or departmental limits.

Purdue has a university-wide AI-use policy covering data security and institutional standards, while academic permission is still communicated through course guidance.

Rice's Honor Council treats passing off AI-generated ideas as plagiarism, while professors may create course-specific policies that supersede the general AI rule.

Rutgers says AI should not be considered permissible for coursework unless an instructor clearly authorizes it. Departments can add disciplinary guidance and concerns about unreliable detection.

Stanford treats generative AI as a form of outside assistance. Substantial AI completion of assignments is not permitted unless course guidance authorizes the relevant use, and students are expected to disclose non-incidental use.

Tufts requires disclosure of substantive AI use as a matter of trust and integrity, but instructors can choose restrictive, directed, or encouraging course policies.

Berkeley’s current guidance emphasizes that generative AI must not be used in ways that would count as plagiarism if the source were human. Instructors are expected to communicate course-specific boundaries, while separate university rules govern data and tool use.

UCLA encourages instructors to state clearly whether AI is prohibited, permitted in limited ways, or allowed with citation. The university does not provide one universal permission rule for all coursework.

UCSD connects AI use to academic-integrity values and directs students to instructor rules. Extended Studies uses a clearer default: do not use AI for coursework without explicit approval.

UChicago does not rely on one universal permission policy for all coursework. University guidance connects AI use to academic honesty and attribution, while instructors and professional schools set more specific rules.

UConn has no blanket university AI policy; existing integrity and data rules apply, and instructors are encouraged to place specific AI rules in syllabi and assessments.

UF tells students to cite AI assistance and comply with the Honor Code, while instructors may choose policies ranging from no AI to structured use.

Illinois encourages acknowledgment of how AI was used, but individual courses can range from strict prohibition to permission with attribution.

Iowa tells instructors to give clear assignment-level rules and treats AI-generated coursework without authorization or attribution as academic dishonesty.

UMD uses course-level rules for AI and explicitly warns that detector results are only possible indicators, not definitive proof or a sole basis for grading.

UMass Amherst's default position is that students may not use generative AI to complete academic work unless the instructor expressly permits it.

Michigan asks instructors to define course rules and emphasizes student responsibility for accuracy, citations, and transparent AI use. Submitting fully generated work as one’s own is treated as plagiarism.

Minnesota expects students to follow course and institutional rules, fact-check AI output, and acknowledge use. Colleges may adopt additional professional and privacy requirements.

UNC asks instructors to define permitted AI uses, documentation expectations, and whether rules differ by assignment. AI can violate the Honor Code when it supplies uncredited or unauthorized work.

Notre Dame treats unapproved AI use under its Honor Code and asks faculty to communicate explicit expectations. Student guidance distinguishes AI that supports learning from AI that replaces a student's work.

Penn treats unauthorized AI as unauthorized assistance under its academic-integrity framework. Individual instructors decide what uses are acceptable, while schools and programs may publish narrower rules.

Rochester's education guidance calls for transparency and directs students to the academic-honesty policy of their school. Instructors decide when students must, may, or cannot use GenAI.

USC has a university-wide generative AI policy governing tool and data use, but academic permission remains course-specific. Access to ChatGPT Edu does not itself authorize AI use in assignments.

UT Austin considers AI use dishonest when it violates instructor expectations. Graduate guidance separately prohibits generative AI in theses and dissertations unless the advisory committee authorizes it.

UVA requires instructors to make permitted and prohibited AI uses explicit. Using AI in a way prohibited by the instructor may violate the Honor Code, and schools or research units can impose additional disclosure and data rules.

UW treats unauthorized AI assistance as potential cheating and encourages instructors to make deliberate course policies. Colleges and schools add their own expectations.

UW–Madison grounds AI use in academic integrity but expects instructors to communicate their own rules. Sample policies treat uncited AI use as cheating.

Vanderbilt empowers instructors to set AI policies. If an instructor says nothing, university guidance permits AI use but requires disclosure of all use.

Wake Forest expects every class to provide clear guidance. Graduate policy treats unauthorized GenAI use as academic misconduct and requires instructors to specify disclosure methods.

WashU directs students to course expectations and warns that AI may create plagiarism or fabricated information. Teaching resources provide policy language ranging from prohibition to selected use.

Yale requires students to follow institutional standards and the instructions of each course. Unauthorized or unattributed AI-generated text may violate academic integrity, and individual schools can add more specific requirements.