Policy presence
University of Denver has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Denver, United States
University of Denver
University of Denver has 5 source-backed AI policy claims from 2 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 5 reviewed claims. Last checked May 23, 2026.
University of Denver AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
University of Denver has 5 source-backed AI policy claims from 2 official source attributions, including 5 reviewed claims. The record review state is agent reviewed; original-language evidence snippets, source URLs, confidence, and public JSON are preserved for citation. Last checked May 23, 2026. Discovery context: University of Denver is listed as QS 2026 rank 1001-1200.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists University of Denver as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 23, 2026 and last changed on May 23, 2026. The record contains 5 source-backed claims, including 5 reviewed claims, from 2 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/university-of-denver.json. The entity-level confidence is 93%. This tracker is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless the linked source is the university's own official page.
Policy signals in this record
- Evidence includes Privacy claims.
- Evidence includes Academic integrity claims.
- Evidence includes Teaching claims.
- No specific AI service name is highlighted by the current public claim text.
- Disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, or attribution language appears in the public claim text.
- Teaching, assessment, coursework, or syllabus-related language appears in the public claim text.
- Privacy, sensitive-data, or security language appears in the public claim text.
Review: Agent reviewed
This reference record summarizes visible public data only. Official sources and original-language evidence remain canonical; confidence is separate from review state.
This page is not legal advice, not academic integrity advice, and not an official university statement unless a linked source is the university's own official page.
Policy profile
Deterministic source-backed dimensions derived from this record's public claims.
Review: Machine candidate
Policy profile rows are machine-candidate derived metadata. They are not final policy conclusions; inspect the linked claim evidence before reuse.
Analysis page-quality metadata is available at /api/public/v1/analysis/page-quality.json.
AI disclosure
University of Denver has 1 source-backed public claim for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Coursework
University of Denver has 4 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
University of Denver has 4 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
University of Denver has 2 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: conditionally_allowed.
Academic integrity
University of Denver has 2 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: conditionally_allowed.
Approved tools
No source-backed public claim identifying approved or licensed AI tools is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence that identifies institutionally approved, licensed, procured, or enterprise AI tools.
Named AI services
University of Denver has 1 source-backed public claim for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Teaching guidance
University of Denver has 4 source-backed public claims for teaching guidance; deterministic analysis status: recommended.
Research guidance
No source-backed public claim about research AI use is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about research use, publication ethics, research data, grants, or human-subjects compliance.
Security and procurement
No source-backed public claim about AI security review or procurement is present in this profile.
The current public tracker record does not contain claim evidence about security review, procurement, vendor approval, risk assessment, authentication, SSO, or enterprise licensing.
Coverage score measures breadth of public, source-backed coverage only. It is not a policy quality, strictness, legal adequacy, safety, or compliance score.
Evidence-backed claims
5 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Privacy
The University of Denver University Writing Program tells writers not to input private, proprietary, or protected data into a third-party website without understanding the relevant EULAs, privacy policies, and data-use terms.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Writing-program genAI guidance includes a privacy and data-use warning for third-party websites.
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Review the End-User-License-Agreements (EULAs), privacy policies, and other use documentation so that you understand your rights, the rights of the developer, and the use of data you provide to a company. Never input private, propriety, or protected data to a third-party website without understanding these policies.
Academic Integrity
The University of Denver University Writing Program says students should review and abide by instructor policies for assignments before using generative AI technology.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Student-facing writing guidance ties genAI use to instructor assignment policies.
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Before using any such technology, review the policies and constraints of the rhetorical situation. As a student, this means abiding by instructor policies for assignments communicated in the syllabus, assignment, or verbally.
Teaching
For writing assignments, the University of Denver University Writing Program advises faculty to outline clear policies about when and how generative AI can or cannot be used and to include instructions for acknowledging assistance.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Faculty-facing writing guidance recommends assignment-specific genAI policies and acknowledgement instructions.
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Acknowledge that we are aware that genAI exists and outline clear policies about when and how it can or cannot be used in an assignment or task. Blanket syllabus statements forbidding or giving carte blanche are not as helpful as outlining the ways genAI might be used for specific tasks or giving specific directions not to use genAI for certain parts of the writing process.
Teaching
The University of Denver Office of Teaching and Learning advises faculty to state clear expectations for student work and to consider syllabus statements explaining whether and how AI tools can be used.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Faculty-facing AI classroom guidance recommends clear course-level AI expectations and syllabus language.
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Be very clear about your expectations regarding students' work. Consider syllabus statements indicating whether and how AI tools can be used.
Academic Integrity
The University of Denver Office of Teaching and Learning advises faculty not to rely on AI-checking software to confirm suspected academic dishonesty.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Faculty-facing academic-integrity guidance cautions against relying on AI detectors.
Evidence originale
Evidence 1Don't rely on AI checking software to confirm your suspicions. Although Turnitin and other companies have programs that check for AI-generated writing, many of these programs are, at best, in their earliest stages, or at worse, unreliable.
Candidate claims
0 machine or needs-review claim
Candidate claims are not final policy conclusions. They preserve source URL, source snapshot hash, evidence, confidence, and review state so the record can be audited before review.
Official sources
2 source attribution
Concerns About Student Use - Office of Teaching & Learning
otl.du.edu
Statement on Generative AI and Writing
academicaffairs.du.edu
Change log
Source-check timeline and diff-style claim/evidence preview.
View the public change record for this university, including source snapshot hashes, claim review states, and a diff-style preview of current source-backed evidence.
Corrections and missing evidence
Corrections create review tasks and do not directly change this public record.
If an official source is missing, stale, moved, blocked, or incorrectly summarized, submit a source URL, policy change report, or institution correction for review. Corrections must preserve source URLs, source language, original evidence, review state, and audit history.