University AI Policy Tracker
APIGitHub
Language
ENZHFRPLESNLMSJAKOPTARRUDEITCSTRFISVDANBHULTIDVITHFAHEHIURBNUKELZH-HANT

Cambridge, United States Last checked

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Independent · Open access · Not an official university page

What would you like to check?

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

Explore the current record by topic

Coursework

Unclear

Course-specific policies determine assessment permission. The faculty guidance does not establish a universal coursework permission or prohibition.

Official source ↗

Exams

Not mentioned in reviewed sources

No universal exam permission or prohibition is established by this reviewed record. Follow the actual exam instructions; tool access is not exam permission.

Disclosure

Recommended

MIT Libraries provides citation and acknowledgment guidance. Applicable class and publication requirements may differ; no universal mandatory disclosure rule is established here.

Official source ↗

Privacy & sensitive data

Restricted

Public GenAI must not receive Medium Risk MIT data. No GenAI tool may receive High Risk MIT data; public tools are not recommended for Low Risk MIT data.

Official source ↗

Approved tools

Conditional

MIT-licensed tools have eligibility and data conditions. Their institutional approval is separate from permission for a class or assessment.

Official source ↗

Research & publication

Unclear

The committee recommends thesis AI-use statements; applicable COUHES applications have mandatory Data Card and consent requirements. These distinct scopes must not be collapsed into one universal research rule.

Official source ↗
More reviewed record topics

Academic integrity

Unclear

The committee describes COD detector-evidence limits; general COD return conditions are not AI-specific penalties. These sources do not establish automatic AI sanctions.

Official source ↗

Teaching guidance

Recommended

Instructors are encouraged to state clear course policies. TLL strongly recommends against AI detection tools; this is guidance rather than an Institute-wide detector ban.

Official source ↗

Security and procurement

Required

Purchasing a new GenAI tool requires VPF procurement. Request assessment before using or purchasing a tool not on the IS&T list.

Official source ↗

Before you submit

Do

  • Check the policy for this course before using AI.
    Site advice
  • For academic writing, acknowledge AI help and verify its output.
    Source guidance
  • Check the data risk level and the exact licensed service.
    Site advice

Don’t

  • Do not put High Risk MIT information into any GenAI tool.
    Requirement in this scope
  • Do not put Medium Risk MIT data into public GenAI tools.
    Requirement in this scope
  • Do not treat an AI-detector result alone as proof.
    Site advice
AI use questioned?Investigation, possible outcomes and appeal

AI use questioned?

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

Read each cited rule for its course, academic unit, activity and exceptions. Site advice does not create a university obligation.

Investigation & response

MIT's August 13, 2026 committee report states that COD does not consider AI-detector output alone sufficient for an AI-related academic integrity case. This records the committee's description of COD practice, not a blanket detector ban.

Original evidence and scope

MIT's August 13, 2026 committee report states that COD does not consider AI-detector output alone sufficient for an AI-related academic integrity case. This records the committee's description of COD practice, not a blanket detector ban.

clm-massachusetts-institute-of-technology-detector-output-not-sufficient
the COD itself does not consider AI detector output alone sufficient.

PDF actual page 19 (printed page 17), §3.1.9, Preparing our disciplinary system; normalized text lines 38-38

Official university source ↗

Students needing disability accommodations to participate in a COD process are directed to Disability and Access Services. This is a general disciplinary procedure resource, not an AI-specific sanction.

Original evidence and scope

Students needing disability accommodations to participate in a COD process are directed to Disability and Access Services. This is a general disciplinary procedure resource, not an AI-specific sanction.

clm-massachusetts-institute-of-technology-cod-disability-accommodations
If you have a disability and need an accommodation to participate in any part of the COD process, please contact Disability and Access Services

Student Disability and Access Services; normalized text lines 25-26

Official university source ↗

MIT students who are victims of misconduct or responding to an allegation of policy violation are encouraged by the COD to seek personal support through resources including Mental Health and Counseling, Alcohol and Other Drug Services, Violence Prevention and Response, and Chaplains.

Original evidence and scope

MIT students who are victims of misconduct or responding to an allegation of policy violation are encouraged by the COD to seek personal support through resources including Mental Health and Counseling, Alcohol and Other Drug Services, Violence Prevention and Response, and Chaplains.

mit-fact-11

Committee on Discipline; victims and respondents in disciplinary processes;

Personal Support The COD recognizes that it can often be difficult to find yourself the victim of misconduct or responding to an allegation that you violated MIT policy. The COD encourages you to seek and receive personal support during this process. Resources at MIT for this include: Mental Health and Counseling Alcohol and Other Drug Services Violence Prevention and Response Chaplains

Published supplemental locator: lines 29–34

Official university source ↗

Possible outcomes

Permission to return to MIT after suspension does not guarantee return to the same department, degree program, lab group, or related position. This is a general COD sanction condition, not an AI-specific penalty.

Original evidence and scope

Permission to return to MIT after suspension does not guarantee return to the same department, degree program, lab group, or related position. This is a general COD sanction condition, not an AI-specific penalty.

clm-massachusetts-institute-of-technology-suspension-return-limits
Students allowed to return to the Institute after being suspended are not guaranteed to be able to return to the department, specific degree program, lab group, or any related position that they were in prior to their suspension.

§XI.D, paragraph after permission to return; normalized text lines 32-32

Official university source ↗

Failure to complete or comply with COD sanctions may result in an enrollment hold, revision of the sanction, or further disciplinary action, as determined by the Chair.

Original evidence and scope

Failure to complete or comply with COD sanctions may result in an enrollment hold, revision of the sanction, or further disciplinary action, as determined by the Chair.

mit-fact-05

Committee on Discipline; respondents with assigned sanctions;

Respondents are required to complete and/or comply with COD sanctions. Failure to complete or comply with sanctions may result in an enrollment hold, revision of the sanction, or further disciplinary action, as determined by the Chair. The Chair may consult with other COD members as needed if revising any sanction or taking further disciplinary action.

Published supplemental locator: lines 35–35

Official university source ↗

Review & appeal

A decision after a hearing, panel meeting, or sanctioning panel to suspend (including a suspension held in abeyance), expel, revoke a degree, suspend or revoke recognition of a student group, or terminate approval of a student organization residence may be appealed by the respondent to the Chancellor; in all other cases, the COD decision is final unless otherwise specifically noted.

Original evidence and scope

A decision after a hearing, panel meeting, or sanctioning panel to suspend (including a suspension held in abeyance), expel, revoke a degree, suspend or revoke recognition of a student group, or terminate approval of a student organization residence may be appealed by the respondent to the Chancellor; in all other cases, the COD decision is final unless otherwise specifically noted.

mit-fact-01

Committee on Discipline; students and student organizations; respondent appeal of specific severe sanctions Only enumerated severe sanctions; special Section XIII rules include complainant/Title IX and other sexual-misconduct-related routes; not universal denial of appeal.

For eligible COD appeals: submit in writing to OSCCS within five business days of receiving the decision letter. Only the listed decisions are appealable; Section XIII has special rules.

All appeals must be submitted in writing to the OSCCS staff by the appealing party (usually the respondent; see Section XIII for situations when the complainant may appeal) within five business days of the date the appealing party received the letter advising them of the decision of the COD.
Official university source ↗
A decision after a hearing, panel meeting, or sanctioning panel to suspend (including a suspension held in abeyance) or expel a student, revoke a degree, suspend (including a suspension held in abeyance) or revoke recognition of a student group, or terminate approval of a student organization residence may be appealed by the respondent to the Chancellor. In all other cases, the COD decision is final, unless otherwise specifically noted (see Section XIII for special rules regarding appeals in cases involving sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, intimate partner violence, stalking, and Title IX Sexual Harassment). All appeals must be submitted in writing to the OSCCS staff by the appealing party (usually the respondent; see Section XIII for situations when the complainant may appeal) within five business days of the date the appealing party received the letter advising them of the decision of the COD.

Published supplemental locator: lines 35–36

Official university source ↗

For COD appeals that are available under the captured Rules, four ordinary grounds are specified: substantive relevant information unavailable at decision; substantial procedural departure significantly affecting fairness; a material finding substantially against the evidence; or a sanction at significant variance with the appropriate range. Appeal availability is limited to the listed serious decisions, with other decisions final unless specifically noted; special sexual-misconduct/TitleIX rules include additional or modified grounds.

Original evidence and scope

For COD appeals that are available under the captured Rules, four ordinary grounds are specified: substantive relevant information unavailable at decision; substantial procedural departure significantly affecting fairness; a material finding substantially against the evidence; or a sanction at significant variance with the appropriate range. Appeal availability is limited to the listed serious decisions, with other decisions final unless specifically noted; special sexual-misconduct/TitleIX rules include additional or modified grounds.

mit-fact-02

MIT Committee on Discipline; students and student organizations; Captured COD appeal grounds; scope and appeal availability limited by RulesXII and special provisions, not a right to appeal every COD decision.

A. Appeals may only be made on one or more of the following grounds: there exists substantive and relevant information that was not available at the time of the decision a. In cases involving complaints of Title IX Sexual Harassment, this includes new evidence that was not reasonably available at the time the determination regarding responsibility or dismissal was made that could affect the outcome of the matter. there was a substantial departure from the COD rules and procedures that significantly affected the fairness of the process;

Published supplemental locator: lines 38–41

Official university source ↗
a material finding that formed a basis for the COD’s decision was substantially against the weight of the evidence that was before the COD when it made the decision; and/or the sanction is at significant variance with the range of sanctions appropriate in the situation.

Published supplemental locator: lines 43–44

Official university source ↗
XII. Appeals A decision after a hearing, panel meeting, or sanctioning panel to suspend (including a suspension held in abeyance) or expel a student, revoke a degree, suspend (including a suspension held in abeyance) or revoke recognition of a student group, or terminate approval of a student organization residence may be appealed by the respondent to the Chancellor. In all other cases, the COD decision is final, unless otherwise specifically noted (see Section XIII for special rules regarding appeals in cases involving sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, intimate partner violence, stalking, and Title IX Sexual Harassment). All appeals must be submitted in writing to the OSCCS staff by the appealing party (usually the respondent; see Section XIII for situations when the complainant may appeal) within five business days of the date the appealing party received the letter advising them of the decision of the COD. In the event IDHR dismisses a complaint of Title IX Sexual Harassment following an initial assessment, the dismissal may be appealed by either party in accordance with the processes established by IDHR.

Published supplemental locator: lines 34–37

Official university source ↗
In cases involving complaints of Title IX Sexual Harassment, a party may also appeal on the additional ground that the Title IX Coordinator, the investigator(s), or the decision-maker(s) had a conflict of interest or bias for or against complainants or respondents generally or the individual complainant or respondent that affected the outcome of the matter. B .The Chancellor makes a decision based upon the written appeal(s) providing the ground(s) on which the party is relying for appeal, and as much of the record of the COD hearing or sanctioning panel of the case as the Chancellor determines it is appropriate to consider. C. The Chancellor will consult with the Chair on all appeals. The Chancellor may also confer with other participants in the hearing or sanctioning panel and, in sexual misconduct cases, with the Title IX Coordinator and/or the investigator(s). D. Before modifying or overruling a decision of the COD, the Chancellor will meet with available members of the COD who decided the case and will make a final decision after consulting with them. E. The final decision will be communicated in writing to the same people who received written notice of the COD decision (including simultaneously to both the complainant and the respondent in all cases involving complaints of sexual misconduct, sexual harassment, intimate partner violence, stalking, and Title IX Sexual Harassment), and to any other officials of MIT who need to be aware of it in order to permit them to fulfill their professional responsibilities. When it is reasonable, a member of the OSCCS staff shall meet with the parties regarding any appeal decision. F. This appellate decision by the Chancellor is final.

Published supplemental locator: lines 45–50

Official university source ↗
H. No appeal is available for the decision of (i) the COD to resolve a complaint, either in whole or in part, by making recommendations to MIT Senior Leadership, or (ii) MIT Senior Leadership to accept, reject, or modify a recommendation of the COD under Section XI.L.

Published supplemental locator: lines 52–52

Official university source ↗

AI tools & access

  • Open AI ChatGPTInstitutional access / licenceConditions apply

    We recommend accessing OpenAI models through Parley , or log into ChatGPT with your MIT email

  • Microsoft CopilotInstitutional access / licenceRecorded as allowed in the source scope

    Access Copilot via Touchstone with your MIT Kerberos account

  • Microsoft Copilot for M365Institutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Request an account through the IS&T ServiceNow portal

  • Google GeminiInstitutional access / licenceRecorded as allowed in the source scope

    Access Gemini via Touchstone with your MIT Kerberos account

  • Google NotebookLMInstitutional access / licenceRecorded as allowed in the source scope

    Access NotebookLM via Touchstone with your MIT Kerberos account

  • Adobe FireflyInstitutional access / licenceRecorded as allowed in the source scope

    MIT's Adobe Creative Cloud license

  • AWS SagemakerInstitutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Register for an AWS account through IS&T's MIT Cloud Accounts program

  • Azure OpenAIInstitutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Register for an Azure account through IS&T's MIT Cloud Accounts program

  • Google VertexInstitutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Register for a GCP account through IS&T's MIT Cloud Accounts program

  • ParleyUniversity-hosted serviceRecorded as allowed in the source scope

    Parley is available to all faculty, staff, and students

  • Salesforce EinsteinInstitutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Contact IS&T's Salesforce Licensing

  • Zoom AI CompanionInstitutional access / licenceRecorded as allowed in the source scope

    Enable features by signing into MIT's Zoom portal via Touchstone

  • AWS BedrockInstitutional access / licenceConditions apply

    Register for an AWS account through IS&T's MIT Cloud Accounts program

Record updatesLast 90 days · Recorded updates: 3

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

  1. Page update

    Other records · Page update

    View revision

    Loading revision…

  2. Held / removed from current conclusions

    Source Status · Records involved: 2 (2 held)

    View revision

    Loading revision…

  3. Record addition · Site correction

    Academic integrity · Teaching · 7 more topics · Records involved: 28 (21 corrected / adjusted · 7 added)

    View revision

    Loading revision…

Reviewed record

Reviewed claims

26 reviewed claims

Held conclusions and historical evidence (2)

These original records and prior review states are retained for provenance, not as current permissions, duties or precise deadlines.

Historical IS&T guidance captured on May 6, 2026: MIT prohibits the use of generative AI for purposes that may require in-depth risk assessments without prior consultation with ai-guidance@mit.edu. Such purposes include recruitment and hiring of employees, evaluating student academic performance, making investment decisions, and complaint and dispute resolution. This specific provision is not reproduced on the current guidance page; its current applicability has not been confirmed.

Current status: held; historical review state: needs_review

clm-massachusetts-institute-of-technology-risk-assessment-uses

Do not use generative AI for purposes that may require in-depth risk assessments without contacting ai-guidance@mit.edu. Examples include: recruitment and hiring of employees, evaluating student academic performance, making investment decisions, and complaint and dispute resolution.

Historical IS&T guidance captured on May 6, 2026: MIT departments, labs, centers, and institutes (DLCIs) already using a generative AI tool or service must ensure that the tool complies with all Institute policies and Information Protection guidelines, and must contact ai-guidance@mit.edu for consultation or assessment if needed. This specific provision is not reproduced on the current guidance page; its current applicability has not been confirmed.

Current status: held; historical review state: needs_review

clm-massachusetts-institute-of-technology-existing-tool-review

If an MIT DLCI is already using a generative AI tool or service, ensure that the tool complies with all Institute policies and Information Protection guidelines. Contact ai-guidance@mit.edu if you have a need for a consultation or assessment.

Source record

Official sources

11 sources

10 official URLs; 11 source attributions and their captured versions retained.

Guidance for use of Generative AI tools | Information Systems & Technology

ist.mit.edu

University official source

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hash and captured version

Guidance for use of Generative AI tools | Information Systems & Technology · 2026-10-10T18:52:29.198Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

3d3eb666df03eb643e7bb548af9efb03f348e115bfa969a8450ac1a1a95030d2

Guidance for use of Generative AI tools · 2026-05-06T00:57:37.427Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

9f5d98b57ae0a98780b717171db014845705949710b3e8247db979042e50878d

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

Official source ↗

Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence – The White House

www.whitehouse.gov

External government reference

The White House

Hash and captured version

Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence – The White House · 2026-10-10T18:52:29.198Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

9f8e1d4f0b9fbfa842fb712b41dc7ce047f1fdcea55be22fa2dda3fda4d4d3f1

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

Official source ↗

Generative AI tools available at MIT | Information Systems & Technology

ist.mit.edu

University official source

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hash and captured version

Generative AI tools available at MIT | Information Systems & Technology · 2026-10-10T18:52:29.198Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

ac43a70663827e05c7df5abac42e811f08e89baa4140ad7598118a323664652c

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

Official source ↗

Home - Citing AI tools - LibGuides at MIT Libraries

libguides.mit.edu

University official source

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hash and captured version

Home - Citing AI tools - LibGuides at MIT Libraries · 2026-10-10T18:52:29.198Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

1c23576c5204015c0f4de8c0450b13aa0b80b67a1281f7b408d887a6c0b4fd05

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

Official source ↗

Communications from the Chair | MIT Faculty Governance

facultygovernance.mit.edu

University official source

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hash and captured version

Communications from the Chair | MIT Faculty Governance · 2026-10-10T18:52:29.198Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

c68938b928504a4644936cba95a8acbce17912fc3fd5d1bccb8a998bd6987cc2

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

Official source ↗

Report of MIT's Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use, August 13, 2026

sites.mit.edu

University official source

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hash and captured version

Report of MIT's Ad Hoc Committee on AI Use, August 13, 2026 · 2026-10-10T18:52:29.198Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

db443298d69a4153dfeb2a52d07c0c4c18377330d7084a2811cbd552ef5311f5

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

Official source ↗

Generative AI & Your Course – Teaching + Learning Lab

tll.mit.edu

University official source

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hash and captured version

Generative AI & Your Course – Teaching + Learning Lab · 2026-10-10T18:52:29.198Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

82cf3a20cb9a2bb0e92c2cb9d3c6667c7f719c47edf74afaedf105fbbba371e3

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

Official source ↗

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Research | Committee on the Use of Humans as Experimental Subjects

couhes.mit.edu

University official source

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hash and captured version

Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Research | Committee on the Use of Humans as Experimental Subjects · 2026-10-10T18:52:29.198Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

8418b339b3944fca6189fc45b25d3406707b194c068cca04fa8db772ca2d03f6

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

Official source ↗

Resources and Links – Committee on Discipline

cod.mit.edu

University official source

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hash and captured version

Resources and Links – Committee on Discipline · 2026-10-10T18:52:29.198Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

bdad20ea10cd5569c84ae51759692213107b2498c852bf2b340bf4ebbd152fda

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

Official source ↗

XI. Sanctions – Committee on Discipline

cod.mit.edu

University official source

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Hash and captured version

XI. Sanctions – Committee on Discipline · 2026-10-10T18:52:29.198Z

Representation unspecified in this historical record; do not assume an original-file hash.

c33d5269053f582639b0b253d440b51cdf535d94f153e69346fe86b4dc27eebc

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

Official source ↗
Record information, JSON & citation
ReviewReviewedConfidence95%Snapshot statusneeds_reviewSnapshot hash499901a1…JSONPublic JSON

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
v6-audit-fix-20261014
Dataset release
public-release-20260924-002
Correction published
Student snapshot
Pending independent agent review; not an approved snapshot
Current reviewed JSON · Historical baseline

Outdated or incorrect policy? Report an issue ↗

Citation: University AI Policy Tracker. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) AI Policy Tracker record. Record revision v6-audit-fix-20261014. Evidence checked 2026-10-10; record correction published 2026-10-14. https://eduaipolicy.org/universities/massachusetts-institute-of-technology

Original university source language remains canonical. This tracker is not an official university statement.

Open change log

Saved from University AI Policy Tracker. This record summarizes the cited sources; it is not an official university statement or assessment permission. Source and review dates are listed above. Hashes identify retained content, not authorization.

Questions students ask

Questions students ask

Can I use AI for my coursework?

Course-specific policies determine assessment permission. The faculty guidance does not establish a universal coursework permission or prohibition.

View evidence →
Do I need to disclose AI use?

MIT Libraries provides citation and acknowledgment guidance. Applicable class and publication requirements may differ; no universal mandatory disclosure rule is established here.

View evidence →
Can I upload sensitive data?

Public GenAI must not receive Medium Risk MIT data. No GenAI tool may receive High Risk MIT data; public tools are not recommended for Low Risk MIT data.

View evidence →
Which tools can I access?

MIT-licensed tools have eligibility and data conditions. Their institutional approval is separate from permission for a class or assessment.

View evidence →
What are the examination rules?

No universal exam permission or prohibition is established by this reviewed record. Follow the actual exam instructions; tool access is not exam permission.

View evidence →
What rules apply to research and publication?

The committee recommends thesis AI-use statements; applicable COUHES applications have mandatory Data Card and consent requirements. These distinct scopes must not be collapsed into one universal research rule.

View evidence →
What counts as academic misconduct?

The committee describes COD detector-evidence limits; general COD return conditions are not AI-specific penalties. These sources do not establish automatic AI sanctions.

View evidence →
What guidance applies to teaching?

Instructors are encouraged to state clear course policies. TLL strongly recommends against AI detection tools; this is guidance rather than an Institute-wide detector ban.

View evidence →
What security and procurement requirements apply?

Purchasing a new GenAI tool requires VPF procurement. Request assessment before using or purchasing a tool not on the IS&T list.

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?

26 · Full policy evidence

Full policy evidence →