Instructors at the University of Southern California (USC) have understandably viewed artificial intelligence as a sort of Trojan horse. That is, AI resources might be presented as an academic performance enhancer for students, only to be used to cheat, plagiarize, and engage in other forms of academic misconduct.

This fear is why the school has implemented guidelines for students’ use of AI resources. While most of these policies are established by instructors, the university provides guidance applicable to all students. Furthermore, if a Trojan is accused of misusing an AI resource, they will likely face a disciplinary process conducted by parties other than their instructor.

This article serves as a primer for USC students facing allegations of AI-related misconduct. It is also a worthwhile resource for any student who might face such allegations in the future, as well as those who want to avoid such accusations through a firm understanding of the university’s policies.

If you or your student is accused of AI-related academic misconduct (now or in the future), call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team right away at 888-535-3686 or contact us online.

Does USC Have AI Guidance That Applies to Every Trojan?

Yes, the University of Southern California provides general guidance for every Trojan considering using AI in their academic work. The Office of Academic Integrity’s statement on Generative AI and ChatGPT includes this critical guidance:

  • “All active USC students” have unfettered access to ChatGPT Edu, which is a version of the chatbot designed explicitly for universities

  • Even with this access (and the implicit condoning of AI use that such access imparts), students are expected to abide by each of their professors’ AI usage policies in using ChatGPT Edu and other AI resources

  • Students are encouraged to “connect with instructors” to gain a complete, nuanced understanding of those professors’ unique AI usage policies

  • USC unambiguously grants instructors “the flexibility to set their own course-specific policies,” and students must never think that university-wide guidance supersedes instructors’ rules or expectations

As we will see, USC leadership encourages instructors to embrace artificial intelligence as an inevitable and potentially beneficial technology, rather than clinging to the ways of a pre-AI world that we no longer live in.

USC Provides Uniquely Detailed Guidance for Instructors in Forming Their AI Usage Policies

Many universities’ AI guidance essentially says, “instructors set the rules.” That is, more or less, the extent to which instructors are guided in forming their AI usage policies. 

USC is unique in the level of detail it provides instructors on AI in the classroom. The School’s Committee on Information Services (CIS) published a lengthy document on the topic of instructor-level AI usage policies, and that document:

  • Takes the AI-positive stance that “Instructors should encourage USC students to explore generative artificial intelligence (AI), using these new tools to create, analyze, and evaluate new concepts and ideas that inspire them to generate their own academic work.”

  • Encourages instructors to make students aware of AI’s shortcomings as a way to help students use the technology more productively

  • Proposes two primary paradigms by which instructors can formulate AI policies, which are either “Embrace and Enhance” or “Discourage and Detect”

  • Acknowledges that ChatGPT has the capacity to facilitate academic dishonesty (and is even capable of passing an MBA-level exam at the University of Pennsylvania’s prestigious Wharton School)

  • Ultimately confirms the university’s stance that instructors “set their own course policies regarding student use of generative AI”

USC’s policy overwhelmingly encourages instructors to embrace students’ use of artificial intelligence. It notes that attempting to ban the use of ChatGPT and other AI resources altogether “would be akin to standing on the shore hoping to block a rising tide.”

However, the school’s overarching policies acknowledge that some professors may still elect to place strict prohibitions upon students’ use of AI. In such cases, students are expected to abide by those prohibitions.

Your Instructors’ AI Usage Policies Will Serve as the Preeminent Rules of AI Usage 

Despite USC’s unusually detailed guidance encouraging professors to embrace AI, the school ultimately adopts the same policy as most other schools nationwide. Professors make the rules, and here is a snippet of one USC instructor’s AI usage policy:

“In this course, you are permitted to use artificial intelligence (AI)- powered programs to help you, but only on assignments that explicitly indicate a permitted use of AI.”

Given such a policy, a USC student enrolled in the course would be wise to:

  • Carefully review the instructions for each assignment, specifically looking for AI-specific guidance

  • Speak with their professor about the parameters of acceptable AI use for each assignment

  • Make a note that they will see as they work on an assignment about whether AI resources are permitted, to avoid confusion and unintended misconduct

Instructors are often the ones who report alleged AI misuse, as they have a bird’s-eye view of the rules governing each assignment and of students’ submissions that might violate those rules.

How USC May Adjudicate an AI-Related Allegation of Misconduct Against a Trojan

USC’s Office of Academic Integrity (OAI) handles most cases of alleged academic misconduct. According to school policies, such alleged misconduct may be adjudicated between a professor and the accused student, or may instead proceed through an Administrative Review process.

Important note: Discipline imposed through the Administrative Review process can be appealed, while resolutions negotiated directly between a professor and student cannot.

Allegations of security violations may be handled differently. Our firm can advise you if you are accused of inputting sensitive information into an AI platform, or if you’re accused of any other non-academic form of AI-related misconduct.

Our Student Defense Team will help you make the right decisions for you throughout any disciplinary proceedings you face. We may also be able to negotiate a resolution with USC’s Office of the General Counsel, as attorney-to-attorney negotiations sometimes produce efficient, student-friendly outcomes that the disciplinary process may not.

Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online to learn more about how our experienced team of student advocates can help you.

California

Tell About Your Case

The Pitt’s Joy Kwon Has Medical Students Talking About Setting Boundaries

Once again, the MAX series “The Pitt” has sparked discussions within the medical community, this time focusing on medical student Joy Kwon.  Kwon not only possesses a photographic memory but also has a strong attitude and clearly defined boundaries. After completing a 12-hour shift, she clocks out and goes home, despite […]

The LLF National Law Firm: Anti-Male Bias in Title IX Cases May Be on Its Way Out

A Virginia Tech student who claims the school is biased against men when it comes to allegations of sexual assault can move forward with his lawsuit, a federal judge has ruled. Thomas Terrill, director of the LLF National Law Firm’s Student Defense Team, says this case and a similar one, […]

The College Accommodation Checklist and What to Do If Day One Falls Short

College students and their parents often assume that once a university approves accommodations, they remain active throughout their college journey. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Instead, most universities require students to reregister on an annual basis. If your university fails to implement your approved accommodations or creates unnecessary hurdles […]

The AI Tightrope: Students, ChatGPT, and Academic Misconduct

Artificial intelligence has become a fact of life on college campuses. While debates about AI focus on whether it is helping or hurting education, the reality is that students are already using it in large numbers. Recent studies suggest that somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of college students regularly use […]