Yeshiva University

2. SCOPE This policy applies to student and faculty use of generative AI and related AI- enabled tools in connection with coursework, instruction, assessment, academic research, AI-assisted feedback, and learning activities. It applies to all schools, programs, courses, and instructional modalities unless a more restrictive school, program, course, professional, accreditation, or legal requirement applies. • Coursework • Instruction • Assessment • AI-assisted academic research • AI-assisted feedback • Generative AI tools used by students and instructors This policy does not govern institutional research administration, human resources, admissions, procurement, operational analytics, or other administrative uses of AI that are governed by separate University policies or procedures.

Recopilado: 2026-10-08 · 19–37
SHA-256: 05e44ca9604299705cffb53cef8430f21314cb6504bb8fbb06bc31d403b93e8e

Clear expectations: Faculty should communicate permitted and prohibited AI uses clearly in syllabi, assignment instructions, and other course materials. Where course or assignment expectations are unclear, students are responsible for seeking clarification before using AI.

Recopilado: 2026-10-08 · 60–63
SHA-256: 05e44ca9604299705cffb53cef8430f21314cb6504bb8fbb06bc31d403b93e8e

Condiciones y excepciones

Express authorization consistent with institutional requirements.

3.2 Privacy and Confidentiality Students and faculty may not upload confidential, protected, proprietary, client, patient, student, or research-subject information into AI systems unless expressly authorized and consistent with institutional requirements.

Recopilado: 2026-10-08 · 75–78
SHA-256: 05e44ca9604299705cffb53cef8430f21314cb6504bb8fbb06bc31d403b93e8e

Condiciones y excepciones

Follow the instructor-selected level and stricter school/professional rules.

Level0 specific written instructor exception; Level1 substantive generation requires express permission.

6. FRAMEWORK FOR STUDENT USE OF AI Faculty determine the appropriate level of AI use for their courses and assignments based on learning outcomes, disciplinary expectations, and pedagogical goals. The following framework provides a common University structure for communicating those expectations to students and is intended to support, rather than replace, faculty academic judgment. Level 0 No AI use is permitted for the assignment or activity. Students may not use AI to brainstorm, draft, revise, research, analyze, translate, summarize, solve, code, edit, or otherwise assist with the submitted work unless the instructor provides a specific written exception. Level 1 AI may be used for limited preparatory support, including concept clarification, study assistance, grammar correction, citation formatting, and other non-substantive support functions. AI may not generate, draft, or significantly shape submitted work unless the instructor expressly permits that use for the assignment. Guidance Note Examples of permitted and non-permitted use include: Permitted • spelling correction • grammar correction • formatting • citation formatting Not Permitted • generating paragraphs • restructuring arguments • rewriting substantive content • producing analyses submitted as original work

Recopilado: 2026-10-08 · 141–176
SHA-256: 05e44ca9604299705cffb53cef8430f21314cb6504bb8fbb06bc31d403b93e8e

C) Unsanctioned Use of Artificial Intelligence Definitions: The fundamental principle guiding Yeshiva University’s Academic Integrity Policy is that all work submitted by students should be their own. Artificial Intelligence (AI) represents a tool that has the potential to be used either in accordance with this principle or in conflict with it. For the purposes of this policy, AI technologies are parsed into Generative AI and Assistive AI. It is the student’s responsibility to know what type of platform he/she is using, if use of that platform is allowed in his/her course, and, if so, for what purposes. Unsanctioned use of Generative AI or Assistive AI constitutes a potential academic integrity violation. Generative AI is any AI platform that has the ability to create content from user inputs. Such platforms include but are not limited to: ChatGPT, Grok, CLAUD, Gemini, JASPER, Bard, DeepMind, DALL-E, Grammarly, etc. Because Generative AI can create content, it has significant potential to be used in ways that are inconsistent with the guiding principle of academic integrity. As such, students should be cautious. Students should assume that the use of any platform with generative capabilities is prohibited in their course, even if the platform is used for a non-generative purpose. Faculty members may choose to allow the use of Generative AI in their courses or on particular assessments as they see fit. Those who allow the use of Generative AI should specify, in writing, how it may be used in the course and on specific assessments. It is up to the student to be aware of institutional and course policies regarding the use of Generative AI as well as policies pertaining to individual assessments. Content produced using Generative AI must be cited according to the conventions in the relevant subject area. Using any program not expressly sanctioned by the faculty member or using approved programs for any purpose other than those expressly authorized by the faculty member is a potential violation of academic integrity. Assistive AI is any AI platform that aids the user in producing his/her own original content or refining the user’s original content without generating any substantive content itself. Examples of Assistive AI include, but are not limited to, Hemmingway, MS Editor, etc. Because such platforms do not create substantive content themselves, the use of Assistive AI is not assumed to represent a potential academic integrity violation. However, individual faculty members or departments may choose to limit or prohibit the use of Assistive AI in their courses or on particular assessments. Using any technology or assistance not expressly sanctioned by the faculty member or using approved technology or assistance for any purpose other than those expressly authorized by the faculty member, is a potential violation of academic integrity. It is the responsibility of the student to know what Assistive AI technologies are sanctioned by their instructors and the specific purposes for which their use is permitted.

Recopilado: 2026-10-08 · 102–106
SHA-256: f7f5521e957e1a7080383955425c7d69991391fd0dad349922086ca348358097

Condiciones y excepciones

Unless instructor specifies otherwise; Level1 instructor discretion, research material-use disclosure if instructor specifies.

8. DISCLOSURE AND TRANSPARENCY Disclosure requirements should be stated at the course or assignment level. Unless the instructor specifies otherwise, the following matrix governs minimum expectations: Activity Disclosure Required Level 0 N/A Level 1 Instructor discretion Level 2 Required Level 3 Required Research uses where AI contributed Required if instructor materially specifies Level 4 Required A disclosure should identify the tool used, the purpose of use, the portion of the work affected, and the student’s independent contribution. Students must not represent AI-generated work as their own unaided work when disclosure is required. 9. ASSESSMENT, ACADEMIC INTEGRITY, AND HUMAN JUDGMENT Human Decision Making in Assessment Final grades, disciplinary determinations, degree progress decisions, and substantive evaluative judgments must be made by the instructor of record or other authorized University official. AI may assist but may not independently determine these outcomes.

Recopilado: 2026-10-08 · 237–260
SHA-256: 05e44ca9604299705cffb53cef8430f21314cb6504bb8fbb06bc31d403b93e8e

Condiciones y excepciones

Written admission and AIC approval for minor unintentional source misuse.

Academic penalty may still apply; denial/refusal follows hearing route.

A) For Unintentional Misuse of Sources If a faculty member determines that a student unintentionally misused sources on an assignment or examination, he/she should report the incident to the AIC by submitting the Integrity Case Referral Form available on the academic integrity website, request that the matter be handled as a minor charge, and propose an appropriate penalty when submitting the Integrity Case Referral Form. The AIC may approve the request as is, suggest modifications to the proposed penalty, or deny the request. Handling of a case as a minor charge does not involve a formal AIC hearing and only applies to minor infractions best treated as teachable moments. An infraction may only be handled as a minor charge if the student admits in writing to the infraction, and the AIC approves the request. If the request to handle the infraction as a minor charge is approved by the AIC, the faculty member should provide guidance to the student on the issue that led to the charges (and notify the AIC after the guidance is provided) and should impose the penalty approved by the AIC, such as lowering the grade on the assignment (or examination) in question (including lowering to a grade of "F”). No additional penalty should be imposed. The AIC will maintain a record of the incident and that the student has received instruction on proper practices. The incident will not be part of the student’s official permanent record at that time but will be used to inform whether leniency is appropriate should academic integrity issues arise with the student again in the future. If the request to handle the violation as a minor charge is denied by the AIC, or if the student denies the charge, the infraction will be processed as described below for cases of Intentional Misrepresentation and Cheating which require hearings.

Recopilado: 2026-10-08 · 123–127
SHA-256: f7f5521e957e1a7080383955425c7d69991391fd0dad349922086ca348358097

Condiciones y excepciones

Typical timelines may change with written communication; summer cases may use modified timeline; admitted allegations do not remove hearing choice.

Generally, within seven business days of determining that a possible violation has occurred AIC Initial notification of filed Integrity Case Referral sent to student Generally, within five business days after receipt of the Integrity Case Referral Form. The committee is not obligated to make more than 2 additional attempts to notify a student who does not respond to the initial notification. Student Response to AIC notification and scheduling notice Within three business days after receipt of the initial notification. If the student does not respond after 2 subsequent contact attempts or otherwise cooperate with scheduling attempts, the committee may proceed to process the case. Student Response to additional information/evidence requested by the AIC. Within three business days of the request. If the information or evidence is not received, the AIC may proceed to process the case. AIC Recommendation to Dean If no additional evidence or information has been requested by the AIC: generally no more than seven business days after the date of the hearing (or receipt of additional information). Dean Final Determination Generally, no more than five business days after receipt of the AIC recommendation. Student Filing of Appeal Within ten business days after receipt of the dean’s determination letter Appellate Dean Appeal Determination Generally, within ten business days after receipt of the appeal

Recopilado: 2026-10-08 · 169–193
SHA-256: f7f5521e957e1a7080383955425c7d69991391fd0dad349922086ca348358097

Upon receipt of an integrity case referral, the AIC will notify the student in writing that a report has been filed. A hearing of the AIC will be convened according to the processes described below. A summary chart of the timeline for processing cases brought to the AIC for full hearing as outlined in IV.B can be found in Figure 2. Any changes to the typical timeline will be communicated to students in writing. Charges filed during summer terms may be processed through a modified timeline. Students who are under investigation are not permitted to drop the course or opt for a P/N grade during or after the pendency of proceedings under this policy unless found innocent of charges

Recopilado: 2026-10-08 · 122–122
SHA-256: f7f5521e957e1a7080383955425c7d69991391fd0dad349922086ca348358097

The AIC generally will notify the student that a referral has been made within five business days of receiving the Integrity Case Referral Form. The student will then have three business days to respond to the AIC. After evaluating the nature and circumstances of the violation, in their discretion, the AIC, in consultation with the faculty member, may agree to forgo a hearing and recommend a penalty under the following circumstances: The student admits to the allegations in his/her response to the AIC The student’s account of the potential violation does not differ substantially from the allegations in the report The allegations do not include the charge of colluding with others Possible penalties include, but are not limited to, dismissal from the University, suspension, failure in the course, failure on the assignment or examination, lowering of the grade on the assignment or examination, and/or a notation in the student's permanent record. However, if the AIC has questions or concerns, it may determine that a hearing is warranted, although the circumstances noted above have been met. Students also may choose to attend a hearing if they prefer. The process chart in Figure 2 documents the process which will be followed during academic integrity proceedings for Intentional Misrepresentation and Cheating.

Recopilado: 2026-10-08 · 132–136
SHA-256: f7f5521e957e1a7080383955425c7d69991391fd0dad349922086ca348358097