Policy presence
Emory University has 5 source-backed public claims for policy presence; deterministic analysis status: unclear.
Atlanta, United States
Emory University
Emory University has 13 source-backed AI policy claims from 8 official source attributions. Review state: agent reviewed; 13 reviewed claims. Last checked May 23, 2026.
Emory University AI policy short answer
v1 public contract
Emory University has 13 source-backed AI policy claims from 8 official source attributions, including 13 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: Emory University is listed as QS 2026 rank 182.
Citation-ready summary
As of this public record, University AI Policy Tracker lists Emory University as an agent-reviewed AI policy record last checked on May 23, 2026 and last changed on May 23, 2026. The record contains 13 source-backed claims, including 13 reviewed claims, from 8 official source attributions. Original-language evidence snippets and source URLs remain canonical, with public JSON available at https://eduaipolicy.org/api/public/v1/universities/emory-university.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.
- Evidence includes Security review claims.
- Evidence includes Other policy claims.
- Evidence includes Source status claims.
- Named AI services detected in public claims: ChatGPT, Grammarly.
- Disclosure, acknowledgment, citation, or attribution 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
Emory University has 3 source-backed public claims for ai disclosure; deterministic analysis status: required.
Coursework
Emory University has 5 source-backed public claims for coursework; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Exams
Emory University has 5 source-backed public claims for exams; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Privacy and data entry
Emory University has 5 source-backed public claims for privacy and data entry; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Academic integrity
Emory University has 3 source-backed public claims for academic integrity; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Approved tools
Emory University has 4 source-backed public claims for approved tools; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Named AI services
Emory University has 4 source-backed public claims for named ai services; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
Teaching guidance
Emory University has 2 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
Emory University has 2 source-backed public claims for security and procurement; deterministic analysis status: restricted.
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
13 reviewed evidence-backed public claim
Privacy
Emory Responsible AI guidance says public-facing AI platforms create disclosure risks for Sensitive Information and directs users to use Emory-approved secure AI tools when handling such information.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: sensitive_information_requires_emory_approved_secure_ai_tools
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Use of these public-facing AI platforms creates risks of inadvertent disclosure of Sensitive Information. To protect sensitive information, always use Emory approved AI tools.
Academic Integrity
The Emory College Honor Council AI information sheet says Emory does not currently license an AI detection program, detection tools can produce false positives or negatives, and detection results alone would not ordinarily be sufficient to find a student responsible for a violation.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: ai_detection_results_alone_ordinarily_insufficient
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Emory does not currently license an AI detection program. ... The results of a detection program alone would not ordinarily be sufficient to find a student responsible for a violation without the presence of other indicators.
Teaching
Emory Responsible AI guidance says students must review course syllabi, program handbooks, and faculty expectations regarding AI use because instructors may specify whether tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, or other generative technologies are permitted for assignments and under what conditions.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: students_review_course_ai_expectations_and_permissions
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Academic coursework: Students must review course syllabi, program handbooks, and faculty expectations regarding AI use. Many instructors specify whether tools such as ChatGPT, Grammarly, or other generative technologies are permitted for assignments and under what conditions.
Security Review
Emory Responsible AI guidance says AI tools that have not gone through the EASAT review process may not be suitable for handling Confidential or Restricted data, and users should consult the EASAT website for approved tools and use scope.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unreviewed_ai_tools_may_not_be_suitable_for_confidential_or_restricted_data
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1AI tools that have not gone through Emory’s EASAT review process may not be suitable for handling sensitive information such as Confidential or Restricted data.
Academic Integrity
Emory College Learning Design guidance cites Honor Council language stating that, where AI is not allowed, using an AI program to generate assignment content constitutes plagiarism and an Honor Code violation, and unauthorized AI use may also constitute unauthorized assistance or other Honor Code violations.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: unauthorized_ai_use_may_be_honor_code_violation_where_course_disallows_ai
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Using an artificial intelligence program to generate any content for any assignment in this course ... constitutes plagiarism and is a violation of the Honor Code. The use of an artificial intelligence program in this course without permission from the instructor may also constitute seeking unauthorized assistance or violate other provisions of the Honor Code.
Other
Emory Responsible AI guidance says users should review AI-generated content before adopting it in clinical, administrative, or organizational settings.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Emory Responsible AI guidance says users should review AI-generated content before adopting it in clinical, administrative, or organizational settings.
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Content produced by AI tools should be reviewed prior to adoption in clinical, administrative or other organizational setting.
Academic Integrity
Emory Responsible AI guidance says AI involvement should be disclosed where relevant or required.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Emory Responsible AI guidance says AI involvement should be disclosed where relevant or required.
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Disclose AI involvement where relevant or required (e.g., in co-authored papers or public reports).
Security Review
Emory Responsible AI guidance says users should use only Emory-approved secure AI tools for content workflows.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Emory Responsible AI guidance says users should use only Emory-approved secure AI tools for content workflows.
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Use only Emory-Approved Secure AI Tools.
Other
Emory Responsible AI guidance says users must confirm copyrighted or licensed materials may legally be used before inputting them into AI tools.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Emory Responsible AI guidance says users must confirm copyrighted or licensed materials may legally be used before inputting them into AI tools.
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Before inputting copyrighted or licensed materials, users must confirm that the intended use is legally permitted.
Privacy
Emory Responsible AI guidance says users should provide only the minimum necessary data to AI tools.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Emory Responsible AI guidance says users should provide only the minimum necessary data to AI tools.
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Select and limit AI tool inputs to the smallest amount of data necessary to fulfill the intended purpose.
Privacy
Emory Responsible AI guidance says all data may only be used with AI in accordance with applicable policies, laws, and regulations.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: Emory Responsible AI guidance says all data may only be used with AI in accordance with applicable policies, laws, and regulations.
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1All data may only be used in accordance with applicable policies, laws, and regulations.
Source Status
Emory maintains a public Responsible AI site that presents Emory's Responsible AI Guiding Principles, developed through multiple rounds of input from across the Emory community, with an iterative process over time.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: public_responsible_ai_guiding_principles_site
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1This site is Emory’s home for that work. It presents Emory’s Responsible AI Guiding Principles, developed through multiple rounds of input from across the Emory community, a process that will repeat, iterate, and expand over time.
Teaching
For the Rollins School of Public Health, the Rollins Teaching & Learning Core page says Rollins provides general generative AI guidance to help faculty and instructors develop their own course policies, and expects course policies to vary by context.
Review: Agent reviewed
Normalized value: rollins_school_scope_course_policy_guidance_varies_by_context
Oorspronkelijk bewijs
Evidence 1Rollin's School of Public Health provides general guidance on generative AI to help faculty and instructors develop their own course policies. We expect that courses will vary in their specific policies depending on context.
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
8 source attribution
AI Content Generation & Proofing Guidelines
responsibleai.emory.edu
AI Data Security Responsibilities
responsibleai.emory.edu
Artificial Intelligence (AI)
online.college.emory.edu
Artificial Intelligence: Considerations for Detection
oue.college.emory.edu
Content Generation and Proofing | Emory University | Atlanta GA
responsibleai.emory.edu
Home | Emory University | Atlanta GA
responsibleai.emory.edu
Technology & Evidence-Based Learning | Rollins TLC
sph.emory.edu
Understanding Your Data Security Responsibilities | Emory University | Atlanta GA
responsibleai.emory.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.