The Jesuits who founded Georgetown University in 1789 would hardly recognize the technology that today’s Hoyas take for granted. Looms and oil lamps have given way to 5G and ChatGPT, but one constant throughout Georgetown’s centuries of existence has remained: Rules.

An institution as enduring as Georgetown University must have rules. After a brief period in which ChatGPT and other AI-powered tools operated in a seemingly unregulated environment, Georgetown’s administrators and instructors established the ground rules for when students could—or couldn’t—use AI for academic purposes.

This is where we talk about those rules, including who makes them and what might happen if you’re accused of violating them.

Before we get further into the weeds of Georgetown policy and practice, know what to do if you or your student is accused of AI misconduct: Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team right away at 888-535-3686 or contact us online.

Our perpetual goal is getting students out of jams, and we are a goal-driven team. Our experience and reputation precede us, so don’t wait to reach out.

What Are the Ground Rules for AI Use at Georgetown University?

The document titled “Generative AI at Georgetown” establishes university leadership’s ground rules—or, at least, some general guidance—about responsible AI use. Some of the fundamental tenets that shape Hoyas’ use of artificial intelligence-powered resources are:

Be Transparent

Georgetown guidelines state that students should disclose their AI use “if prescribed by law, university policy, or publisher requirements.” Even if policy does not explicitly mandate that a student disclose their use of AI, it may be wise to do so because:

  • Proactive disclosure can discourage the perception of willful misconduct
  • If a student is accused of AI-related misconduct, their disclosure of AI use may be pivotal to their defense
  • Disclosing how one used AI can prevent a professor from speculating incorrectly that the student may have used an AI resource unethically

Transparency is rarely a bad policy when it comes to students’ use of artificial intelligence.

Be Accountable

If a student decides to use AI in any way, they must be accountable for that decision. For instance, if their use of AI violates an instructor’s usage policy or research conducted through an AI resource produces false information, the student is expected to bear the consequences of such decisions.

Recognize AI’s Bias

AI still has its kinks, and perhaps always will. Students must recognize AI’s potential biases, penchant for hallucination, and other limitations and adapt their use of the technology accordingly.

Be Cognizant of Privacy Concerns

Students are generally expected not to input any sensitive information into AI platforms. Should a student be accused of violating privacy expectations in their use of artificial intelligence, they may face sanctions as a consequence. 

Here is perhaps the most critical piece of AI-related guidance from Georgetown University: “There is no university-wide policy on the use of AI in coursework thus, it is up to individual instructors to determine their own policies.”

So Professors Make the Rules. What Does That Mean for Me as a Student?

Georgetown professors and their assistants are expected to make their AI policies clear and communicate them early in the course. As a student, this approach means:

  • You must be aware of each of your instructors’ AI usage policies
  • If one or more instructors do not proactively provide an AI usage policy, you should seek it out
  • If an instructor’s AI usage policy does not address any use cases, you should discuss them with the instructor before implementing those use cases

University literature cites several syllabi to illustrate how much professors’ AI usage policies can vary. Here are snippets from those examples:

  • A policy that allows substantial use of AI: “Some assignments in this course will require the explicit and intentional use of generative AI. When using an AI generator in your work, including in those assignments, the AI generator used to support your work must be included as a source/citation.”
  • A middle-ground policy on AI use: “New AI text generation tools may be able to generate ideas/topics for your assignments, formulate structure for your written work, and can even help you find existing research on the topic.”
  • A restrictive AI usage policy: “You’re not permitted to use AI text-generating tools at any point when working on your assignments, and I will treat the use of AI text generators as academic dishonesty, and will report the incident to the Honor Council.”

These dramatically different policies illustrate the importance of knowing each professor’s perspective on your AI usage.

What Happens When a Hoya Is Accused of AI-Related Misconduct?

There are several circumstances in which Georgetown students who use AI can be exposed to misconduct allegations. The most obvious risk is that a student violates an instructor’s AI usage policy, which may itself qualify as misconduct.

Should you or your student be accused of unauthorized AI use, the allegation may trigger Georgetown’s Honor System Procedure, which involves:

A Report

A report to the Honor Council of alleged academic misconduct initiates formal disciplinary proceedings.

An Investigation

An assigned Investigating Officer (IO) will lead the investigation of the complaint, during which time the accused student will likely be asked to speak with that IO.

A Potential Expedited Sanction

If a student is willing to accept responsibility for alleged wrongdoing (and the Honor Council gives them the chance to do so), they may receive an expedited sanction without undergoing a hearing.

A Possible Hearing

A hearing may be necessary to gather all relevant facts and hear arguments from both the accuser and the accused.

Any Necessary Appeals

Should the accused student be found responsible for AI-related misconduct, they may file an appeal (should they have sufficient grounds to do so. 

You might face serious sanctions, potentially including suspension or dismissal from Georgetown. Even if you’re not facing such severe consequences, you should always fight to mitigate the potential harm that can come from allegations of misconduct.

Choose to fight for yourself with the fervor with which Jack the Bulldog would fight for a steak, and let us help. This is what we do. Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team right away at 888-535-3686 or contact

Georgetown University

Tell About Your Case

When Academic Discipline Turns Into Litigation

A recent Idaho case shows how academic disputes can escalate when fairness is in question, particularly where allegations of racial discrimination are raised under federal civil rights law. According to the Idaho Capital Sun, a jury awarded $160,000 to a doctoral pharmacy student who alleged racial discrimination after being removed from […]

When the SRO (School Resource Officer) is Involved: Why “Educational Discipline” Just Became “Legal Defense”

In the name of student safety, schools are installing School Resource Officers (SROs) on campus. But SROs’ involvement in campus problems also means that incidents at school can now turn directly into criminal investigations. What parents need to know is this: If your child faces discipline because of an incident […]

Can Schools Punish Students for Social Media Posts? The Mahanoy Standard

A frustrated high school cheerleader walks into a convenience store on a Saturday afternoon. She snaps a photo with a friend, raises her middle finger, and posts a profanity-filled message to Snapchat complaining about school and cheerleading. By Monday, she’s suspended from the cheer squad. Most students would assume that’s […]

State > District > School: How Inconsistent Policies Become a Defense in Student Misconduct

The state is greater than the district, while the district is greater than the school. That probably seems like a weird SAT math problem. However, it describes the legal concept of “preemption,” when a higher authority’s law prevents lower authorities from acting inconsistently with the senior law. And preemption can […]