New York University offers one of the most unique collegiate experiences in the country. Who else gets to call Greenwich Village their campus while pursuing one of the most valuable degrees in the world? NYU is genuinely one of a kind.

There is nothing unique, however, about the way artificial intelligence took NYU by storm, though, as every other college in the country had to contend with the technology’s unprecedented capacity to facilitate academic misconduct.

The internet enabled college students to find third parties willing and able to write their term papers for them. The cellphone enabled students to look up answers mid-test. Yet, AI’s ability to whip up on-demand answers, entire essays, flawless lines of code, and virtually anything else a student needs makes those previous technologies look archaic by comparison.

NYU has tried to wrangle AI without banning the technology altogether. Let’s take a look at what that wrangling effort looks like, examining the various AI usage policies and guidelines that Bobcats are bound by.

Before we go further, know how important effective representation is when a student is accused of academic misconduct. Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team now at 888-535-3686 or contact us online if you or your student faces an allegation of AI misuse.

The AI Policies That Unite All NYU-ers

You’ll find NYU’s trademark torch logo on the purple banners that direct students to university buildings sprinkled throughout Manhattan. The school’s universal AI guidance serves as its own sort of torch, lighting the way for students trying to find permissible ways to use AI.

Some of the broad guidance NYU literature provides students includes:

  • AI is not to be used as “an academic source of information,” which leaves some room for interpretation about how students could use AI

  • If a student does use AI as a source of information, they should cite the source in the way that their professor requires

  • Using AI resources does not constitute academic misconduct if a student’s professor signs off on the use

  • If a student does not have explicit permission to use artificial intelligence in a specific way, they run the risk of violating NYU’s academic integrity policy

  • Specifically, students are at risk of cheating with AI, which the university defines as “Deceiving a faculty member or other individual who assesses student performance into believing that one’s mastery of a subject or discipline is greater than it is by a range of dishonest methods…”

The university also provides guidance for instructors. One teacher-targeted tidbit is that AI detectors are “unreliable” and therefore not recommended for determining whether students have submitted AI-generated work.

Here’s the clear and key point from these policies: The determination of whether AI use constitutes academic misconduct lies with NYU’s professors.

What NYU’s Professor-Led AI Policies Mean for You (the Student)

When universities allow (or command) each instructor to formulate their own AI usage policies, this approach requires students to:

  • Review each professor’s written AI usage policy (and either retain that information or revisit the policy as necessary)

  • Consult each professor about any gaps in their written AI usage policy

  • Present any specific use cases that are not addressed in the professor’s written or verbal AI usage policies

  • Try not to confuse one professor’s AI-specific guidance with another’s

For greater context, here is an example of an AI policy from the NYU Stern School of Business course Programming & Algorithms Using Python:

“Use of ChatGPT and related generative AI tools is allowed in this class assignments only as specified in each assignment. When you use any of these tools, you must include a note describing how you used them for the assignment, including the prompting text you created and how you modified the output. Use of ChatGPT and related tools is not permitted for use when taking class quizzes or exams.”

In this course, students need not only to know the instructor’s general AI usage policy (e.g., no ChatGPT during exams) but also the policy for each individual assignment. This might be the only reasonable way to permit AI without issuing a blanket ban, but it means students have more homework tracking variable AI policies.

How AI-Related Misconduct Can Happen Without a Student Intending to Violate the Rules

You don’t have to have an NYU-worthy intellect to see how a student could easily commit AI-related misconduct without meaning to:

  • Stressed from NYU’s academic rigors and personal challenges, a student mixes up two professors’ similar AI usage policies

  • A student incorrectly recalls a conversation with a professor about how, specifically, they were allowed to use a specific AI resource

  • The student misreads an email from a professor about a proposed use of a niche AI platform, in doing so believing they were permitted to use the platform (when, after re-reading, they realize they were not allowed to do so)

Some students knowingly violate NYU’s AI usage policies. Others do so without recognizing their error. Other students are wrongly accused of violating an NYU professor’s AI policy. Our Student Defense Team goes to bat for all such students.

How Does NYU Respond to an Accusation of AI-Related Misconduct?

NYU’s Student Conduct Procedures explain how the university responds to allegations of academic misconduct:

  • The Dean of Students may impose interim measures if they deem necessary

  • The complaint is reviewed for merit

  • If the complaint has merit, an investigation occurs

  • A conduct administrator may propose informal, non-punitive measures

  • Or, a conduct administrator may impose sanctions after a Conduct Conference

  • A Student Conduct Panel may host a hearing (if the student does not accept proposed sanctions or adjudicators decide a hearing is the right move)

  • The student may appeal any sanctions imposed upon them, given the opportunity to do so

Dismissal, suspension, and other life-changing sanctions may be on the table. When allegations arise, there is only one team to have on your side. Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team now at 888-535-3686 or contact us online to discuss the path forward.

New York University (NYU)

Tell About Your Case

Understanding Illinois’ Exhaustion of Interventions Mandate

Facing disciplinary action at school can be incredibly stressful for students and their families. When a school threatens long-term suspension or expulsion, academic futures hang in the balance. In Illinois, however, thanks to a landmark law, the state’s priority is keeping students in the classroom. Illinois’ “Exhaustion of Interventions” mandate […]

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 […]