During the summer of 2026, an expanded GenAI in Teaching and Learning (GAITL) Committee explored AI policies for courses to prepare for a university-wide conversation on baseline expectations for AI use in academic work. To support instructors while this conversation is ongoing, the committee developed a range of syllabus statement examples and a simple web tool to help instructors clarify their own AI policy.
The Harriet W. Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning
Example AI Policy Statements
Faculty hold a range of stances toward the use of Generative AI tools for academic work and the same instructor sometimes holds different stances depending on the course they are teaching or even varies expectations across assignments. In this context, it's critical for student learning and ensuring academic integrity that instructors communicate clearly which uses of GenAI are allowed in their course and which are not.
AI Policy Explorer Web Tool
GAITL Committee members found that reflecting on course learning outcomes (what students would know and be able to do), assessments of student learning, and key learning activities, helped clarify what GenAI uses would undermine student learning and whether some GenAI uses might support student learning. The committee encourages instructors to engage in the same reflection as they use the tool.
The AI Policy Explorer allows instructors to select from a list of prohibited and allowed GenAI uses. The tool then creates a sample policy statement that can be copied to a clipboard and pasted into any document for editing.
When reviewing your course AI policy, the GAITL Committee strongly encourages instructors to communicate the rationale behind their course AI policy. Communicating your “why” plays an important role in
NOTE: The AI Policy Explorer is a basic web tool and does not utilize GenAI tools. GenAI tools were used to create the tool.
The tool was created by using Gemini 3.6 (Thinking mode) to generate 114 course-level learning outcomes for undergraduate and graduate level courses in the arts, humanities, languages, life sciences, physical sciences and social sciences with additional focus on writing intensive, advanced reading, problem-solving, and quantitative reasoning courses. After reviewing outcomes and making revisions to generalize some statements, Gemini was directed to generate a limited list of prohibited uses of GenAI based on the rationale that the uses would undermine student learning or make it impossible to assess student learning. After the committee reviewed the 15 prohibitions generated using Gemini, three additional prohibitions were added including a simple “No AI” policy. Gemini was then directed to review the learning outcomes again and generate a list of GenAI uses that could support student learning and enhance accessibility for a diverse range of learners. This resulted in 19 allowed use cases. Finally, Claude Code was used to build the web tool.