University of Southern California

Generative AI and ChatGPT Edu USC recently announced that all active USC students, faculty, and staff will gain unlimited access to ChatGPT Edu . While this tool may be useful for some projects, students are expected to confirm with their instructors what generative AI use, if any, is permitted in their coursework before using it. Students should also connect with instructors to ensure that they fully understand the expectations and limitations regarding the use of Generative AI and/or any external resources. USC remains committed to upholding academic integrity and the academic freedoms of instructors. Instructors are encouraged to reiterate course expectations around the use or prohibition of generative AI tools and expressly communicate to students that the access to ChatGPT Edu does not indicate a shift in policy or expectation. Instructors have the flexibility to set their own course-specific policies regarding the allowable use of generative AI in coursework. If and to what extent instructors would like to allow the use of this tool in their courses, the Office of Academic Integrity encourages instructors to set clear expectations around proper usage in their syllabus and on assignment rubrics. University Policy Reminder 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. If instructors have reason to believe that a student has violated course policy on AI use, they are encouraged to submit a report to OAI.

Recopilado: 2026-10-09 · 40–45
SHA-256: 3df46a58d4e9282191aa9366dc298911d042b467b45df09b3b4338e69f2793af

Condiciones y excepciones

Agreed administrative resolution is not appealable.

Administrative Review Incidents reported to OAI and not resolved through an FSR will be reviewed through the Administrative Review process. OAI will send notice to the student involved (via USC email). The instructor on record will also be copied on the notification to the student. The student will be invited to meet with OAI staff to discuss the incident, answer questions, and provide their perspective of what occurred. If it is determined that there exists insufficient information to conclude that the student violated university policy by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., what is more likely to have occurred) standard, then the case will be dismissed with no findings or outcomes issued. If the student accepts responsibility for the allegations, OAI staff may seek to reach an agreement with the student during the administrative review as to appropriate outcomes. If an agreement is reached (i.e., the student accepts responsibility for the alleged violations and the outcomes proposed by OAI staff), the matter is considered resolved and no appeal is available. If the student challenges either the findings of responsibility and/or the outcomes proposed by OAI staff, the next steps are dependent on the possible outcomes proposed by OAI staff. If an outcome could include suspension, expulsion, revocation of admission, or revocation of degree, OAI staff will refer the matter to a review panel for its determination of responsibility and outcomes. The student’s previous disciplinary record will be considered in determining appropriate outcomes and the student retains their ability to appeal the decision issued. If there is no potential outcome of suspension, expulsion, revocation of admission, or revocation of degree, OAI staff will use a preponderance of evidence standard to determine if the student is responsible for the allegation(s). (There is no option for a review panel.) If so, OAI staff will determine the appropriate outcomes with consideration of the student’s previous disciplinary record (if any). The student may submit an appeal.

Recopilado: 2026-10-09 · 45–52
SHA-256: 07625ccbf3f210071058cc80bba6daf9a562bece4aead7c32b57c59563f13317

Condiciones y excepciones

Student degree and course level both matter.

Faculty-Student Resolution The FSR permits instructors to resolve academic dishonesty directly with a student if the following criteria are met: The student is an undergraduate enrolled in an undergraduate course. The student accepts responsibility for the allegation (and the instructor’s proposed resolution); The alleged behavior is deemed appropriate by OAI for resolution between the instructor and student; and The student has not previously been held accountable for academic dishonesty through an FSR or through OAI. An FSR form is completed and signed by the faculty and student involved and then submitted to OAI. If the alleged academic integrity violation occurred in a graduate level course (course number 500 or above) or by a student enrolled in a graduate degree program other than a progressive degree program, the case is not eligible for the FSR process.

Recopilado: 2026-10-09 · 62–69
SHA-256: 07625ccbf3f210071058cc80bba6daf9a562bece4aead7c32b57c59563f13317

• Appeal Process. A student/organization must submit an and provide a written decision to the student/ appeal to the appeal manager within 10 business days organization and OCE/OAI. The appellate authority from the date of issuance of the written decision. Any may uphold the initial decision in its entirety, send the request for an extension is at the discretion of the case back to OCE/OAI for further review, modify appeal manager.

Recopilado: 2026-10-09 · 2021–2029
SHA-256: e89f6a2b3e943f4c23d07ead27a0fd786b75fd541d4c36b791724ecae8d2968a

student/organization entitled to, an additional Review Panel Appeals process. Under those circumstances, if OCE/OAI determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the student/ • Appeal Eligibility. The determination or outcome(s) of organization has committed an additional policy violation, the an administrative review or Review Panel in OCE or deferred outcome shall be implemented without referral to a OAI may be appealed by the student/organization Review Panel, unless, in the university’s sole judgment, pursuant to this section, other than academic integrity extraordinary circumstances justify not doing so. violations by doctoral students. Outcomes that may be deferred include, but are not limited to, Students/organizations may not appeal an removal from housing, suspension, expulsion, and loss of group administrative review in which they accepted recognition. A decision to implement a deferred outcome does responsibility for the alleged violation(s) and reached an not prevent them from applying additional or more significant agreement as to (an) outcome(s) or an administrative outcomes (e.g., expulsion). review or Review Panel in which the student/ Other Outcomes organization was not found responsible for a violation

Recopilado: 2026-10-09 · 1966–1978
SHA-256: e89f6a2b3e943f4c23d07ead27a0fd786b75fd541d4c36b791724ecae8d2968a

Condiciones y excepciones

Human analysis and supporting elements remain; no automatic finding from percentages.

AI Detection Tools Guidance Instructors should exercise caution when using AI detection tools and prioritize their own professional judgment when evaluating student work. While automated detection tools may seem like a convenient solution, it’s crucial to understand their limitations. For example, they cannot definitively identify AI-generated content and have been known to produce false positives, which can unfairly implicate students. Overreliance on these tools can lead to incorrect labeling of student work as AI-generated, potentially damaging trust and causing harm to innocent 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. Instead of relying solely on percentages from automated detection tools, it is recommended that instructors limit their use to highlight passages requiring additional consideration. If you suspect unauthorized use of Generative AI, begin by reviewing the work to identify areas of concern. For example, upon further review, does the work appear to Use unexpected or restricted sources Fabricate source materials Have a change in voice or tone from the student’s other assignments Lack evidence of the student’s learning process (e.g., missing drafts, outlines, or other required elements that demonstrate building upon ideas) Is unexpected for the course material Something else? When concerns arise, consider having a conversation with the student about their work before making conclusions. This is not required, but can provide valuable context and may reveal legitimate explanations eliminating the need to file a report with OAI. When submitting a report to OAI regarding unauthorized use of Generative AI in student work, it is expected that the instructor identifies why they believe the assignment, whether in full or in part, was created using Generative AI. Instructors should feel confident reporting any time they believe a violation may have occurred. However, relying on evidence created by AI detection tools is insufficient to determine responsibility without additional analysis or other supporting elements. The instructor’s analysis and contextual understanding of the student’s work are essential components of the academic integrity process and underscore the importance of human judgment in the detection process. While instructors are not required to find additional supporting elements, students are not likely to be found responsible without it.

Recopilado: 2026-10-09 · 52–64
SHA-256: eccb185f9cce1f7b3f786ed0c4adea929d031560d46a6075e5380f77fd400f8b

Condiciones y excepciones

Approved agreement/review exception; PHI additional approvals.

​5.1 Protecting USC Data ​5.1.1 AI Tools, like any technology, carry inherent risks of data exposure once data has been input. Therefore, all Covered Individuals must familiarize themselves with the following guidelines before using any AI Tools for USC purposes, on a USC network, or with USC data. ​5.1.2 Covered Individuals and System Owners must abide by all applicable data protection and information security Policies when using AI Tools, including University information Security Policies and Standards. ​5.1.3 In alignment with incident reporting requirements, Covered Individuals and System Owners must immediately report potential and suspected unauthorized disclosure or use of USC Confidential or Internal Use Only data. ​Possible and actual data privacy issues should be reported to a supervisor and the Office of Ethics and Compliance (compliance@usc.edu) or Report and Response (report.usc.edu) ​Possible and actual cybersecurity related issues should be reported to a supervisor and the USC Cyber Defense Team’s Security Operations Center (security@usc.edu) ​5.1.4 AI tools also carry unique risks with respect to intellectual property. Covered Individuals must comply with all applicable intellectual property laws and University policies when using AI Tools. The use of AI Tools does not alter or diminish obligations relating to copyright, trademark, patent, licensing, attribution, citation, permissions, or other intellectual property requirements. Any use of AI-Tools for USC purposes must comply with applicable legal requirements and University policies governing the use of third-party intellectual property and other protected content. ​5.1.5 USC Data may not be used to train, retrain, fine-tune, or otherwise improve third-party Artificial Intelligence or Machine Learning models unless expressly authorized by the University through an approved agreement and review process. Covered Individuals must ensure that AI tools and services are configured, where available, to disable use of USC Data for model training or product improvement. ​5.2 Protecting USC Integrity ​5.2.1 Decisions affecting University operations, academic matters, employment actions, admissions, student outcomes, research conclusions, healthcare activities, or legal obligations may not rely solely on AI-generated outputs and require appropriate human review and judgment. ​5.2.2 Covered Individuals may be subject to rules governing the use and disclosure of external assistance and sources, including, but not limited to AI Tools. 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, IRB determinations, and any other specific Department, School, or Unit, or course requirements. ​5.3 Acquisition of Artificial Intelligence Tools ​5.3.1 Contracting to purchase or receive access to any software or service that utilizes AI requires clear disclosure during the procurement process and adherence to applicable Third-Party Security Risk Management and Secure Systems Development policies and standards. Following the approval for any AI software or service, all standard USC Procurement policies and processes are applicable to complete the purchase. Additional review may be required during procurement-related contracting reviews. ​5.3.1.1 Purchased AI Tools, which generally carry terms and conditions for use, must be processed in alignment with University and DSU-specific processes ​5.3.1.2 All tools are also subject to the University’s Acceptable Use, Data Protection policies and other relevant University policies when used for USC purposes and/or when used on a USC network. ​5.3.1.3 AI tools that create, transmit, store, or otherwise process Protected Health Information (PHI) or other HIPAA-covered data may be subject to additional requirements beyond this Policy, including (a) an executed Business Associate Agreement with the vendor, (b) approval by Keck Medicine of USC’s Office of Healthcare Compliance, (c) approval by a designated Keck Medicine of USC task force, and (d) deployment only within environments authorized for clinical or HIPAA-regulated use. Additional details for Keck Medicine of USC relevant policies related to these requirements can be found in ISPOL-002 Acceptable Use Policy and ISPOL-039 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Responsible Use Policy.

Recopilado: 2026-10-09 · 80–95
SHA-256: 04d13f05125c52b81806b2e31923f50ef1c84dbcd481d27e79a29904fe241741