University AI Policy Tracker
APIGitHub
Language
ENZHFRPLESNLMSJAKOPTARRUDEITCSTRFISVDANBHULTIDVITHFAHEHIURBNUKELZH-HANT

Baltimore, United States Last checked

Johns Hopkins University

Independent · Open access · Not an official university page

What would you like to check?

Search universities
Can I use AI for my coursework?ConditionalDo I need to disclose AI use?ConditionalCan I upload sensitive data?ProhibitedWhich tools can I access?Conditional
Use in ChatGPT ↗Before you submitAdvice and precautionsRecord updates ↓

Explore the current record by topic

Coursework

Conditional

Engineering for Professionals (EP) implements a course-level color classification system for generative AI use: Red (GenAI is prohibited, including drafting, editing and revision, unless the instructor or applicable course instructions explicitly state otherwise), Yellow (moderate AI permitted with restrictions and required disclosure), and Green (liberal AI permitted with transparency). Course-level designation is mandatory; Yellow courses must also include assignment-level labels. This policy applies strictly to EP courses and does not establish a blanket university-wide permission.

Official source ↗

Exams

Conditional

In Engineering for Professionals (EP) courses, assessments designated Red prohibit generative AI assistance, including drafting, editing and revision, unless the instructor or applicable course instructions explicitly state otherwise. Students must follow specific course and examination instructions; tool access does not confer examination permission, and unauthorized AI use is subject to disciplinary procedures.

Official source ↗

Disclosure

Conditional

In Yellow and Green EP courses, students must adhere to instructor standards for AI disclosure, where full transcripts, model/site citations, or visual highlighting serve as potential examples. Students must save AI outputs and interaction records if disclosure or verification is requested by the course. Hopkins Press requires authors to disclose generative AI use in submissions and will not credit AI as an author.

Official source ↗

Privacy & sensitive data

Prohibited

Johns Hopkins IT policies prohibit entering non-public proprietary Hopkins data (including clinical, financial, and business records) into unapproved third-party AI tools. Meeting hosts should not enable Zoom AI Companion features for meetings involving student education records (FERPA recommendation). HopGPT is approved for sensitive data including PHI and PII, subject to institutional stewardship and required research approvals (IRB for non-clinical research; SIP for clinical research or uses involving PHI/PII).

Official source ↗

Institutional tools

Conditional

Johns Hopkins provides ChatGPT Edu ($8.50/mo base plus usage for full-time faculty/staff), HopGPT (secure internal LLM), Copilot Web (free, non-HIPAA), Microsoft 365 Copilot ($215/yr, HIPAA-compliant), Claude ($22/$55 recharge for active affiliates 18+ on campus or VPN), and Zoom AI Companion (hosts should not enable for FERPA student records). Institutional tool access does not confer coursework or exam authorization.

Official source ↗

Research & publication

Conditional

Hopkins Press policy requires authors to disclose generative AI use in publisher submissions; manuscripts substantially written by AI are not accepted. Research use of HopGPT requires IRB approval for non-clinical research and SIP approval for clinical research or uses involving PHI/PII.

Official source ↗
More reviewed record topics

Academic integrity & procedures

Conditional

Under Graduate Academic Misconduct Procedures applying to KSAS and WSE (Homewood 2017 / AAP 2018), informal resolution of first offenses requires AIO consultation, sanction not exceeding course failure, and mutual agreement reported to the AIO. Hearing Panels apply the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. Except for informal first-offense resolutions, appeals must be submitted in writing to the AIO or designee for the Cognizant Dean within 10 university business days of the date of the outcome notice, limited to material procedural error, new unavailable information, or excessive sanction. Appeals involve a file review rather than another hearing. CTEI detector guidance is instructional advice rather than a university-wide ban.

Official source ↗

Teaching guidance

Recommended

Teaching @ JHU generative AI guidance advises faculty to consult local divisional guidelines for discipline-specific generative AI information, policies, and practices when published.

Official source ↗

Security and procurement

Unclear

Central IT security review protocols, vendor risk assessment criteria, and institutional procurement standards for third-party artificial intelligence tools are not established in reviewed public records.

Before you submit

Do

  • Check EP course color designations: complete work independently under Red; follow specific instructor conditions and disclosures under Yellow; maintain transparency under Green.
    Requirement in this scope
  • In EP coursework, use generative AI only within instructor permission conditions (permitted with transparency in Green; permitted under defined parameters and disclosure in Yellow), disclosing tool use and retaining interaction outputs if verification is requested (course guidance); when submitting scholarly manuscripts to Hopkins Press, authors are required to disclose GenAI/LLM use through a prominent statement and cite specific generated content (publisher requirement).
    Source guidance
  • For graduate misconduct appeals (KSAS/WSE), file in writing with the AIO or designee for the Cognizant Dean within 10 university business days of the outcome notice on permitted grounds.
    Source guidance

Don’t

  • Do not use generative AI in EP Red courses or Red assessments, and do not enter non-public proprietary Hopkins data into unapproved third-party AI tools.
    Requirement in this scope
  • Meeting hosts should not enable Zoom AI Companion for meetings involving student education records (FERPA), and unapproved commercial tools must not receive clinical, financial, or proprietary data.
    Source guidance
  • Do not assume institutional tool access (ChatGPT Edu, HopGPT, Copilot, Claude) confers permission for specific course assessments or examinations.
    Source guidance
AI use questioned?Investigation, possible outcomes and appeal

AI use questioned?

Johns Hopkins University

Johns Hopkins IT Responsible Use & Data Governance; Teaching @ JHU & CTEI Guidance; Whiting Engineering for Professionals (EP) Course Categorization & Student AI Guide; Krieger/Whiting Graduate Academic Misconduct Procedures (Homewood 2017 / AAP 2018); Hopkins Press Author Policy. Institution audit remains PARTIAL.

Investigation & response

The captured Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy applies to graduate students in KSAS and WSE, including EP and AAP, with effective dates11 October2017 for KSAS/WSE Homewood and WSE EP, and29 August2018 for KSAS AAP. After consultation with the AIO, a first offense may be resolved informally by the student and faculty member, program chair or graduate-study director only if the sanction is no greater than course failure and both parties agree; neither party is obliged to agree, and an agreed resolution must be reported to the AIO using the prescribed form. Hearing Panels use the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, meaning more likely than not. Except for informal first-offense resolutions, a student may appeal a panel finding or sanction within ten university business days of the date of the outcome notice, in writing to the AIO or designee for the Cognizant Dean: grounds are materially consequential procedural error, previously unavailable information that could reasonably have affected the finding or sanction, or excessive sanctions. The appeal is a file review rather than another hearing; after a final determination without panel remand or rehearing, no further appeals are permitted under this policy. Separately, the captured EP faculty guidance says suspected violations, including GenAI misuse, should be reported to the EP AIO and faculty should not independently resolve potential misconduct.

Original evidence and scope

The captured Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy applies to graduate students in KSAS and WSE, including EP and AAP, with effective dates11 October2017 for KSAS/WSE Homewood and WSE EP, and29 August2018 for KSAS AAP. After consultation with the AIO, a first offense may be resolved informally by the student and faculty member, program chair or graduate-study director only if the sanction is no greater than course failure and both parties agree; neither party is obliged to agree, and an agreed resolution must be reported to the AIO using the prescribed form. Hearing Panels use the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, meaning more likely than not. Except for informal first-offense resolutions, a student may appeal a panel finding or sanction within ten university business days of the date of the outcome notice, in writing to the AIO or designee for the Cognizant Dean: grounds are materially consequential procedural error, previously unavailable information that could reasonably have affected the finding or sanction, or excessive sanctions. The appeal is a file review rather than another hearing; after a final determination without panel remand or rehearing, no further appeals are permitted under this policy. Separately, the captured EP faculty guidance says suspected violations, including GenAI misuse, should be reported to the EP AIO and faculty should not independently resolve potential misconduct.

draft-claim-jhu-graduate-academic-misconduct-procedures
Effective October 11, 2017 (KSAS and WSE Homewood, WSE EP) Effective August 29, 2018 (KSAS AAP) I. SCOPE The following policy applies to all graduate students enrolled in full-time, part-time, or non-degree (visiting/special) programs in the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences (‘KSAS’) and the Whiting School of Engineering (‘WSE’), including Engineering for Professionals (“EP”) and KSAS Advanced Academic Programs (“AAP”).

physical page 1; lines 4-10; Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy, Version Header and Section I Scope (Page 1)

Official university source ↗
If it is a first offense, and after consultation with the AIO, the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study and the student may reach an informal resolution of the alleged misconduct provided that: 1. It is a first offense, AND 2. The imposed sanction would be no greater than failure in a course, AND 4 3. The student and the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study agree to the terms of resolution of the alleged misconduct. (Neither the faculty member nor the student are obligated to resolve a compl

physical page 4; lines 173-193; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
aint informally.) If such an agreement is reached, the the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study and student must complete the ‘Report of Informal Resolution Form’ (“Report”) and the the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study must provide a copy of that Report to their AIO (or designee) to be filed in the Office of Academic Affairs’ academic misconduct files. The Report is a part of the student’s academic conduct record. Unless required by law, regulation or contract, KSAS and WSE will neither confirm nor deny the existence of any informal resolution reached under this Section and will not disclose the contents of any such resolution to thi

physical page 4; lines 173-193; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 700–1400

Official university source ↗
rd parties, but the information will be made available to any university panel in the adjudication of any future infractions.

physical page 4; lines 173-193; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 1400–1525

Official university source ↗
A "preponderance of the evidence" standard will be used to determine responsibility for alleged violations of this policy. A "preponderance of the evidence" standard is an evidentiary standard that means "more likely than not." This standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.

physical page 6; lines 241-244; Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy, Section IV.D, Evidentiary Standard (Page 6)

Official university source ↗
Except in the case of an informal resolution for first time offenses with a faculty member, the student may appeal a panel’s finding of responsibility and/or sanction(s). A student must file their appeal within ten (10) university business days of the date of the notice of outcome on one or more of the following grounds: 9 • procedural error that could have materially affected the determination of responsibility or sanction(s); • new information that was not available at the time of the hearing and that could reasonably ha

physical page 9; lines 416-443; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
ve affected the determination of responsibility or sanction(s); and • excessiveness of the sanction(s). Any appeal must be filed in writing with the AIO (or designee), who will review and send to the Cognizant Dean for a decision. An appeal will involve a review of the file by the Cognizant Dean; the appeal does not involve another hearing. On review of the appeal, the Cognizant Dean may seek additional information or clarification from the AIO, Hearing Panel, any relevant faculty member, the accused student, or any other relevant University or non-university personnel. On review of the appeal, the Cognizant Dean or designee may: • enter a revised de

physical page 9; lines 416-443; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 700–1400

Official university source ↗
termination of responsibility and/or revise sanction(s); or • remand the matter to the original panel to reconsider the determination of responsibility and/or sanction(s); or • convene a new panel to consider the case. If the Cognizant Dean (or designee) has made a final determination with no panel remand/re- hearing, a final appeal determination will simultaneously be sent to the AIO, department chair, the faculty reporter, and the student. No further appeals are permitted.

physical page 9; lines 416-443; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 1400–1930

Official university source ↗
Suspected violations of the Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy, including misuse of Generative AI, should be reported to the EP Academic Integrity Officer, Heather Stewart (heather.stewart@jhu.edu). Faculty should not independently resolve potential misconduct cases.

lines 64-64; Coordinator-extended complete source context

Official university source ↗

Possible outcomes

The captured Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy applies to graduate students in KSAS and WSE, including EP and AAP, with effective dates11 October2017 for KSAS/WSE Homewood and WSE EP, and29 August2018 for KSAS AAP. After consultation with the AIO, a first offense may be resolved informally by the student and faculty member, program chair or graduate-study director only if the sanction is no greater than course failure and both parties agree; neither party is obliged to agree, and an agreed resolution must be reported to the AIO using the prescribed form. Hearing Panels use the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, meaning more likely than not. Except for informal first-offense resolutions, a student may appeal a panel finding or sanction within ten university business days of the date of the outcome notice, in writing to the AIO or designee for the Cognizant Dean: grounds are materially consequential procedural error, previously unavailable information that could reasonably have affected the finding or sanction, or excessive sanctions. The appeal is a file review rather than another hearing; after a final determination without panel remand or rehearing, no further appeals are permitted under this policy. Separately, the captured EP faculty guidance says suspected violations, including GenAI misuse, should be reported to the EP AIO and faculty should not independently resolve potential misconduct.

Original evidence and scope

The captured Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy applies to graduate students in KSAS and WSE, including EP and AAP, with effective dates11 October2017 for KSAS/WSE Homewood and WSE EP, and29 August2018 for KSAS AAP. After consultation with the AIO, a first offense may be resolved informally by the student and faculty member, program chair or graduate-study director only if the sanction is no greater than course failure and both parties agree; neither party is obliged to agree, and an agreed resolution must be reported to the AIO using the prescribed form. Hearing Panels use the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, meaning more likely than not. Except for informal first-offense resolutions, a student may appeal a panel finding or sanction within ten university business days of the date of the outcome notice, in writing to the AIO or designee for the Cognizant Dean: grounds are materially consequential procedural error, previously unavailable information that could reasonably have affected the finding or sanction, or excessive sanctions. The appeal is a file review rather than another hearing; after a final determination without panel remand or rehearing, no further appeals are permitted under this policy. Separately, the captured EP faculty guidance says suspected violations, including GenAI misuse, should be reported to the EP AIO and faculty should not independently resolve potential misconduct.

draft-claim-jhu-graduate-academic-misconduct-procedures
Effective October 11, 2017 (KSAS and WSE Homewood, WSE EP) Effective August 29, 2018 (KSAS AAP) I. SCOPE The following policy applies to all graduate students enrolled in full-time, part-time, or non-degree (visiting/special) programs in the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences (‘KSAS’) and the Whiting School of Engineering (‘WSE’), including Engineering for Professionals (“EP”) and KSAS Advanced Academic Programs (“AAP”).

physical page 1; lines 4-10; Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy, Version Header and Section I Scope (Page 1)

Official university source ↗
If it is a first offense, and after consultation with the AIO, the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study and the student may reach an informal resolution of the alleged misconduct provided that: 1. It is a first offense, AND 2. The imposed sanction would be no greater than failure in a course, AND 4 3. The student and the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study agree to the terms of resolution of the alleged misconduct. (Neither the faculty member nor the student are obligated to resolve a compl

physical page 4; lines 173-193; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
aint informally.) If such an agreement is reached, the the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study and student must complete the ‘Report of Informal Resolution Form’ (“Report”) and the the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study must provide a copy of that Report to their AIO (or designee) to be filed in the Office of Academic Affairs’ academic misconduct files. The Report is a part of the student’s academic conduct record. Unless required by law, regulation or contract, KSAS and WSE will neither confirm nor deny the existence of any informal resolution reached under this Section and will not disclose the contents of any such resolution to thi

physical page 4; lines 173-193; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 700–1400

Official university source ↗
rd parties, but the information will be made available to any university panel in the adjudication of any future infractions.

physical page 4; lines 173-193; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 1400–1525

Official university source ↗
A "preponderance of the evidence" standard will be used to determine responsibility for alleged violations of this policy. A "preponderance of the evidence" standard is an evidentiary standard that means "more likely than not." This standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.

physical page 6; lines 241-244; Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy, Section IV.D, Evidentiary Standard (Page 6)

Official university source ↗
Except in the case of an informal resolution for first time offenses with a faculty member, the student may appeal a panel’s finding of responsibility and/or sanction(s). A student must file their appeal within ten (10) university business days of the date of the notice of outcome on one or more of the following grounds: 9 • procedural error that could have materially affected the determination of responsibility or sanction(s); • new information that was not available at the time of the hearing and that could reasonably ha

physical page 9; lines 416-443; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
ve affected the determination of responsibility or sanction(s); and • excessiveness of the sanction(s). Any appeal must be filed in writing with the AIO (or designee), who will review and send to the Cognizant Dean for a decision. An appeal will involve a review of the file by the Cognizant Dean; the appeal does not involve another hearing. On review of the appeal, the Cognizant Dean may seek additional information or clarification from the AIO, Hearing Panel, any relevant faculty member, the accused student, or any other relevant University or non-university personnel. On review of the appeal, the Cognizant Dean or designee may: • enter a revised de

physical page 9; lines 416-443; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 700–1400

Official university source ↗
termination of responsibility and/or revise sanction(s); or • remand the matter to the original panel to reconsider the determination of responsibility and/or sanction(s); or • convene a new panel to consider the case. If the Cognizant Dean (or designee) has made a final determination with no panel remand/re- hearing, a final appeal determination will simultaneously be sent to the AIO, department chair, the faculty reporter, and the student. No further appeals are permitted.

physical page 9; lines 416-443; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 1400–1930

Official university source ↗
Suspected violations of the Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy, including misuse of Generative AI, should be reported to the EP Academic Integrity Officer, Heather Stewart (heather.stewart@jhu.edu). Faculty should not independently resolve potential misconduct cases.

lines 64-64; Coordinator-extended complete source context

Official university source ↗

Review & appeal

The captured Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy applies to graduate students in KSAS and WSE, including EP and AAP, with effective dates11 October2017 for KSAS/WSE Homewood and WSE EP, and29 August2018 for KSAS AAP. After consultation with the AIO, a first offense may be resolved informally by the student and faculty member, program chair or graduate-study director only if the sanction is no greater than course failure and both parties agree; neither party is obliged to agree, and an agreed resolution must be reported to the AIO using the prescribed form. Hearing Panels use the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, meaning more likely than not. Except for informal first-offense resolutions, a student may appeal a panel finding or sanction within ten university business days of the date of the outcome notice, in writing to the AIO or designee for the Cognizant Dean: grounds are materially consequential procedural error, previously unavailable information that could reasonably have affected the finding or sanction, or excessive sanctions. The appeal is a file review rather than another hearing; after a final determination without panel remand or rehearing, no further appeals are permitted under this policy. Separately, the captured EP faculty guidance says suspected violations, including GenAI misuse, should be reported to the EP AIO and faculty should not independently resolve potential misconduct.

Original evidence and scope

The captured Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy applies to graduate students in KSAS and WSE, including EP and AAP, with effective dates11 October2017 for KSAS/WSE Homewood and WSE EP, and29 August2018 for KSAS AAP. After consultation with the AIO, a first offense may be resolved informally by the student and faculty member, program chair or graduate-study director only if the sanction is no greater than course failure and both parties agree; neither party is obliged to agree, and an agreed resolution must be reported to the AIO using the prescribed form. Hearing Panels use the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, meaning more likely than not. Except for informal first-offense resolutions, a student may appeal a panel finding or sanction within ten university business days of the date of the outcome notice, in writing to the AIO or designee for the Cognizant Dean: grounds are materially consequential procedural error, previously unavailable information that could reasonably have affected the finding or sanction, or excessive sanctions. The appeal is a file review rather than another hearing; after a final determination without panel remand or rehearing, no further appeals are permitted under this policy. Separately, the captured EP faculty guidance says suspected violations, including GenAI misuse, should be reported to the EP AIO and faculty should not independently resolve potential misconduct.

draft-claim-jhu-graduate-academic-misconduct-procedures
Effective October 11, 2017 (KSAS and WSE Homewood, WSE EP) Effective August 29, 2018 (KSAS AAP) I. SCOPE The following policy applies to all graduate students enrolled in full-time, part-time, or non-degree (visiting/special) programs in the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences (‘KSAS’) and the Whiting School of Engineering (‘WSE’), including Engineering for Professionals (“EP”) and KSAS Advanced Academic Programs (“AAP”).

physical page 1; lines 4-10; Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy, Version Header and Section I Scope (Page 1)

Official university source ↗
If it is a first offense, and after consultation with the AIO, the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study and the student may reach an informal resolution of the alleged misconduct provided that: 1. It is a first offense, AND 2. The imposed sanction would be no greater than failure in a course, AND 4 3. The student and the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study agree to the terms of resolution of the alleged misconduct. (Neither the faculty member nor the student are obligated to resolve a compl

physical page 4; lines 173-193; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
aint informally.) If such an agreement is reached, the the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study and student must complete the ‘Report of Informal Resolution Form’ (“Report”) and the the faculty member/program chair/program director of graduate study must provide a copy of that Report to their AIO (or designee) to be filed in the Office of Academic Affairs’ academic misconduct files. The Report is a part of the student’s academic conduct record. Unless required by law, regulation or contract, KSAS and WSE will neither confirm nor deny the existence of any informal resolution reached under this Section and will not disclose the contents of any such resolution to thi

physical page 4; lines 173-193; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 700–1400

Official university source ↗
rd parties, but the information will be made available to any university panel in the adjudication of any future infractions.

physical page 4; lines 173-193; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 1400–1525

Official university source ↗
A "preponderance of the evidence" standard will be used to determine responsibility for alleged violations of this policy. A "preponderance of the evidence" standard is an evidentiary standard that means "more likely than not." This standard is met if the proposition is more likely to be true than not true.

physical page 6; lines 241-244; Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy, Section IV.D, Evidentiary Standard (Page 6)

Official university source ↗
Except in the case of an informal resolution for first time offenses with a faculty member, the student may appeal a panel’s finding of responsibility and/or sanction(s). A student must file their appeal within ten (10) university business days of the date of the notice of outcome on one or more of the following grounds: 9 • procedural error that could have materially affected the determination of responsibility or sanction(s); • new information that was not available at the time of the hearing and that could reasonably ha

physical page 9; lines 416-443; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 0–700

Official university source ↗
ve affected the determination of responsibility or sanction(s); and • excessiveness of the sanction(s). Any appeal must be filed in writing with the AIO (or designee), who will review and send to the Cognizant Dean for a decision. An appeal will involve a review of the file by the Cognizant Dean; the appeal does not involve another hearing. On review of the appeal, the Cognizant Dean may seek additional information or clarification from the AIO, Hearing Panel, any relevant faculty member, the accused student, or any other relevant University or non-university personnel. On review of the appeal, the Cognizant Dean or designee may: • enter a revised de

physical page 9; lines 416-443; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 700–1400

Official university source ↗
termination of responsibility and/or revise sanction(s); or • remand the matter to the original panel to reconsider the determination of responsibility and/or sanction(s); or • convene a new panel to consider the case. If the Cognizant Dean (or designee) has made a final determination with no panel remand/re- hearing, a final appeal determination will simultaneously be sent to the AIO, department chair, the faculty reporter, and the student. No further appeals are permitted.

physical page 9; lines 416-443; Coordinator-extended complete source context; excerpt offset 1400–1930

Official university source ↗
Suspected violations of the Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy, including misuse of Generative AI, should be reported to the EP Academic Integrity Officer, Heather Stewart (heather.stewart@jhu.edu). Faculty should not independently resolve potential misconduct cases.

lines 64-64; Coordinator-extended complete source context

Official university source ↗

AI tools & access

  • ChatGPT EduOfficial recommendationConditions apply

    Submit account request with cost center; accept invitation via JHEDID@JH.EDU (full-time faculty and staff)

  • Claude EnterpriseOfficial recommendationConditions apply

    Request through the Johns Hopkins AI Management Portal on campus or via VPN; requires cost-center recharge and fiscal year commitment. Requires active JHU affiliation and age 18+.

  • Copilot for WebOfficial recommendationRecorded as allowed in the source scope

    Select Continue with Microsoft, log in with JHEDID and password, then select Work

  • Microsoft 365 CopilotOfficial recommendationConditions apply

    Obtain approval, provide cost center, and order via Software Catalog (full-time faculty and staff only)

  • HopGPTOfficial recommendationRecorded as allowed in the source scope

    Sign in with JHED credentials at https://hopgpt.it.jh.edu

  • Zoom AI CompanionOfficial recommendationConditions apply

    Included at no additional charge for all Licensed Zoom accounts in the Johns Hopkins enterprise; not supported for Basic or free accounts.

Record updatesLast 90 days · Recorded updates: 6

Updates to this site's reviewed record, not confirmation that the university changed its policy.

Some records have no verified date. See the full history.

  1. Page update

    Other records · Page update

    View revision

    Loading revision…

  2. Site correction

    Coursework · Exams · 1 more topics · Records involved: 2 (2 corrected / adjusted)

    View revision

    Loading revision…

  3. Site correction

    Approved tools · Records involved: 1 (1 corrected / adjusted)

    View revision

    Loading revision…

Reviewed claims

16

Official sources

20 official URLs; 21 source attributions and their captured versions retained.

Faculty-Facing Guidance on Student Generative AI Use

ep.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Faculty-Facing Guidance on Student Generative AI Use · 2026-10-19T00:01:25Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

6e8e01cec2901f7ff06b536e805d949c2e51aa4e76090bc6d891de4538bc3957

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Student Guidance On Responsible Generative AI Use

ep.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Student Guidance On Responsible Generative AI Use · 2026-10-19T00:01:27Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

be2efc0e3b5b544e644f98f042e54f6f1f46ee7f79741270f4fb4427435a5ff2

Student Guidance On Responsible Generative AI Use · 2026-10-20T22:09:00.585899Z

SHA-256 of retained extracted UTF-8 text; not the original HTML/PDF file.

c01be4577f7fb6ca99c94758563f70b346ca7a58eda2023fe22562186517feff

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

301 Moved Permanently (EP Academic Misconduct Policy Redirect)

ep.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

301 Moved Permanently (EP Academic Misconduct Policy Redirect) · 2026-10-19T00:01:49Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

90e7344291d30e7d3dd5a629729918ab0009fb46b9d7b91030e357fe02867f27

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy

krieger.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Graduate Academic Misconduct Policy · 2026-10-19T00:01:31Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

8db220b0d62d86e350cd14789f8471fcd25a546cf166c3fbb2315a6e8e6faac5

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Guidelines for Responsible Use of AI

it.johnshopkins.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Guidelines for Responsible Use of AI · 2026-10-19T00:01:33Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

a2d3881a526269324b312d885fc6f66a4df0e7505147cd4784403912c58236e8

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

HopGPT Platform Documentation

it.johnshopkins.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

HopGPT Platform Documentation · 2026-10-19T00:01:35Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

222de198133f4a7c17aeffade2a41805a12eb7b2051ca856d74c3c59d6bca349

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Claude Service Offering FAQ

it.johnshopkins.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Claude Service Offering FAQ · 2026-10-19T00:01:37Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

5007873d77d40c75e3492d972feef0237d7e7e91841956c5b9c55ef801c15181

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Zoom AI Companion Overview

it.johnshopkins.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Zoom AI Companion Overview · 2026-10-19T00:01:40Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

fa8f7f7626b7393c3d94f62ccb6bb9d5fe220270cfb09391ad59bb9469e9cd55

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Teaching and AI

ctei.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Teaching and AI · 2026-10-19T00:01:42Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

c9e63cc2a9281341b514cf57ce634aa247a816632d63c9d86c3d478780f8990c

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Generative AI Policy for Authors

www.press.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Generative AI Policy for Authors · 2026-10-19T00:01:44Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

390db91f36a50ad82b6237cbe19e080ce579ee0416f3546e1bed28f466bc4f66

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

AI in Research Library Guide

guides.library.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

AI in Research Library Guide · 2026-10-19T00:01:46Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

3c1e74ebc392e422a3e68fa70f26811304764e48fb4d50b91328bdfce68193d7

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

AI Tools - CMTS Support

support.cmts.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

AI Tools - CMTS Support · 2026-10-19T00:01:47Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

27769b90fec3b0cc3a9f7f1b4ba7db85e41e076800798d86ca801ae1aef37e55

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Generative AI - Teaching @ JHU

teaching.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Generative AI - Teaching @ JHU · 2026-10-19T00:01:51Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

e684b07a4862d3ee1db88dd42990a8ca7f2c69a197f9cd9f0859dcbfc6f23d25

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Guidelines - Teaching @ JHU

teaching.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Guidelines - Teaching @ JHU · 2026-10-19T00:01:53Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

0361c671b44f0c3eeeae37fe164e5732da010adcee3ba345bff98a7fea5f9e0e

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Example Syllabi Statements - Teaching @ JHU

teaching.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Example Syllabi Statements - Teaching @ JHU · 2026-10-19T00:01:55Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

b798c11c21d63a79554776a9ff51f37d8937256fe47a6c8c87b49e0fa199d84b

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Academic Ethics Policy - Carey Business School

carey.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

Academic Ethics Policy - Carey Business School · 2026-10-19T00:01:57Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

7bfc2e7a45aca848f2df488eb3f02fc3193cec8e9af309a7f598763ad017ec70

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

605.203 Discrete Mathematics Syllabus

ep.jhu.edu

University official source

Johns Hopkins University

Hash and captured version

605.203 Discrete Mathematics Syllabus · 2026-10-19T00:02:00Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

28aed3a1cfb7c3f2dcc21dfb8ffce1442c0167b407c8c875640992c7750dcb34

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

Student Policy Snapshot API Probe

eduaipolicy.org

University official source

Official Institutional Source

Hash and captured version

Student Policy Snapshot API Probe · 2026-10-19T00:02:01Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

d1d8fcf98217a5ad3081c637e73d5b5df337050fc5abdd2dd2f32828a9bc3567

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

University Baseline API

eduaipolicy.org

University official source

Official Institutional Source

Hash and captured version

University Baseline API · 2026-10-19T00:02:02Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

afef455e28847d5a577fdbcaa71807f7941c4ad5cca95208e32bc056815af722

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗

University Changes Page

eduaipolicy.org

University official source

Official Institutional Source

Hash and captured version

University Changes Page · 2026-10-19T00:02:03Z

SHA-256 of the retained capture file bytes.

3a0e4cd9f5ea289cc540d6608b21065b2f3651f4cb81d7e84858aafd68d92666

Hashes identify a captured version; they do not establish current policy or review approval.

Official source ↗
Record information, JSON & citation

Review layers: claim review applies to the claims only. Analysis is a separate machine-generated summary awaiting review. Coverage scores do not establish complete policy knowledge.

Claim review state
agent_reviewed
Analysis review state
machine_candidate
Record revision
qs20-24-v6-r7-20261020
Dataset release
public-release-20260924-002
Correction published
Student snapshot
Not published
Current reviewed JSON · Historical baseline

Published V6 presentation; JSON and MCP retain the existing public record. Supplementary quotations and scope notes remain pending review. Local candidate corrections, tools and student summaries are not approved for publication. Institution-wide audit remains PARTIAL.

          Current reviewed JSON
          Questions students ask

          Questions students ask

          Can I use AI for my coursework?

          Engineering for Professionals (EP) implements a course-level color classification system for generative AI use: Red (GenAI is prohibited, including drafting, editing and revision, unless the instructor or applicable course instructions explicitly state otherwise), Yellow (moderate AI permitted with restrictions and required disclosure), and Green (liberal AI permitted with transparency). Course-level designation is mandatory; Yellow courses must also include assignment-level labels. This policy applies strictly to EP courses and does not establish a blanket university-wide permission.

          View evidence →
          Do I need to disclose AI use?

          In Yellow and Green EP courses, students must adhere to instructor standards for AI disclosure, where full transcripts, model/site citations, or visual highlighting serve as potential examples. Students must save AI outputs and interaction records if disclosure or verification is requested by the course. Hopkins Press requires authors to disclose generative AI use in submissions and will not credit AI as an author.

          View evidence →
          Can I upload sensitive data?

          Johns Hopkins IT policies prohibit entering non-public proprietary Hopkins data (including clinical, financial, and business records) into unapproved third-party AI tools. Meeting hosts should not enable Zoom AI Companion features for meetings involving student education records (FERPA recommendation). HopGPT is approved for sensitive data including PHI and PII, subject to institutional stewardship and required research approvals (IRB for non-clinical research; SIP for clinical research or uses involving PHI/PII).

          View evidence →
          Which tools can I access?

          Johns Hopkins provides ChatGPT Edu ($8.50/mo base plus usage for full-time faculty/staff), HopGPT (secure internal LLM), Copilot Web (free, non-HIPAA), Microsoft 365 Copilot ($215/yr, HIPAA-compliant), Claude ($22/$55 recharge for active affiliates 18+ on campus or VPN), and Zoom AI Companion (hosts should not enable for FERPA student records). Institutional tool access does not confer coursework or exam authorization.

          View evidence →
          What are the examination rules?

          In Engineering for Professionals (EP) courses, assessments designated Red prohibit generative AI assistance, including drafting, editing and revision, unless the instructor or applicable course instructions explicitly state otherwise. Students must follow specific course and examination instructions; tool access does not confer examination permission, and unauthorized AI use is subject to disciplinary procedures.

          View evidence →
          What rules apply to research and publication?

          Hopkins Press policy requires authors to disclose generative AI use in publisher submissions; manuscripts substantially written by AI are not accepted. Research use of HopGPT requires IRB approval for non-clinical research and SIP approval for clinical research or uses involving PHI/PII.

          View evidence →
          What counts as academic misconduct?

          Under Graduate Academic Misconduct Procedures applying to KSAS and WSE (Homewood 2017 / AAP 2018), informal resolution of first offenses requires AIO consultation, sanction not exceeding course failure, and mutual agreement reported to the AIO. Hearing Panels apply the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. Except for informal first-offense resolutions, appeals must be submitted in writing to the AIO or designee for the Cognizant Dean within 10 university business days of the date of the outcome notice, limited to material procedural error, new unavailable information, or excessive sanction. Appeals involve a file review rather than another hearing. CTEI detector guidance is instructional advice rather than a university-wide ban.

          View evidence →
          What guidance applies to teaching?

          Teaching @ JHU generative AI guidance advises faculty to consult local divisional guidelines for discipline-specific generative AI information, policies, and practices when published.

          View evidence →
          What security and procurement requirements apply?

          Central IT security review protocols, vendor risk assessment criteria, and institutional procurement standards for third-party artificial intelligence tools are not established in reviewed public records.

          View evidence →
          When was this record checked?

          Record checked:

          Record version →
          Which official sources support these rules?Official source →
          Where can I read the full evidence?

          16 · Full policy evidence

          Full policy evidence →