11 # Texas Tech University AI policy record
2+research: Texas Tech Graduate School guidance for theses and dissertations says AI cannot be an author or co-author, students may not use AI tools to write or significantly rewrite the thesis or dissertation, and an AI use agreement is required when AI tools are used.
3+Evidence (en, a92b68bfdfe1): AI cannot be considered an author or co-author of a thesis or dissertation. Students may not use AI (generative or otherwise) tools to write or significantly rewrite the thesis or dissertation document.
4+academic_integrity: Texas Tech's recommended AI syllabus language says AI-generated content should not be submitted as a student's own work and may constitute an academic integrity violation.
5+Evidence (en, ed1b8a2ef10e): AI-generated content must never be submitted as your own work. Doing so may constitute a violation of academic integrity and may be referred to the Office of Student Conduct.
6+privacy: Texas Tech faculty guidance states that the university does not hold institutional agreements with generative AI providers and cautions faculty not to input private or sensitive data into AI platforms.
7+Evidence (en, 3bf13fe93096): Currently, Texas Tech does not hold institutional agreements with generative AI providers. As a result, no university-level data protections are in place for faculty or students using these tools.
8+teaching: Texas Tech TLPDC encourages faculty to include clear syllabus statements describing permitted or prohibited generative AI use, with examples that can be adapted to course objectives.
9+Evidence (en, 9f69286a3e6d): Faculty are encouraged to include a clear statement in their syllabus regarding the permitted or prohibited use of generative AI. The following examples offer baseline language you may adapt to fit your course objectives and pedagogical values.
10+academic_integrity: Texas Tech TLPDC academic misconduct guidance says AI detection tools are not sufficient as sole evidence of academic misconduct.
11+Evidence (en, 97258d440cb3): Remember that an AI detection tool will not be sufficient as sole evidence of academic misconduct. These tools cannot be considered conclusive and may be problematic in determining if a violation occurred.