The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC) is the star of the UNC System. With roots that are almost as old as the country itself and $1.6 billion in annual funding for sponsored research, few universities balance tradition and trailblazing as well as the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 

Fittingly, those in the camps of trailblazing and tradition have become at loggerheads over the issue of artificial intelligence (AI). Those inclined towards trailblazing want to see how students might implement that technology as a performance-enhancer. Traditionalists tend to view AI primarily by its capacity to facilitate cheating, erode cognitive resilience, and degrade the integrity of higher education.

These viewpoints meet at UNC’s various AI usage policies. These policies—whether authored by administrators or instructors—contain both encouraging and restrictive elements, and students must regard each element with equal weight.

Here, we will discuss those policies. We will also briefly explain the adjudication process when any Tar Heel is accused of violating them.

If you or your student stands accused of AI misconduct, call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team right away at 888-535-3686 or contact us online.

UNC’s Official Guidelines for Students’ Use of Artificial Intelligence

Before we review these guidelines, know that students in a pinch for time might skip ahead. Instructors’ AI usage rules are the authority of record. To know how you can or cannot use AI for any given assignment, you should look at your instructors’ syllabi, words, and any other form of guidance they provide.

Those with time, though, can use these guidelines to better understand university leadership’s perspectives on artificial intelligence:

  • Students’ use of AI should always conform to the UNC Honor Code: The guidelines warn that “Generative AI has the potential to be used in ways that violate the UNC Honor Code.” Yet, the guidelines suggest that instructors’ rules, rather than the details of the Honor Code, should be students’ primary reference for acceptable AI use.
  • Tar Heels should be wary of AI-generated misinformation and disinformation: Students can be evaluated based on the veracity of the arguments and information they submit. Therefore, students should be aware that AI-generated facts and outputs are not always reliable.
  • There is no single AI “policy” that applies to every Tar Heel: While UNC provides some general guidelines about “ethical” AI use, there is no single policy that governs every Tar Heel’s AI use. A policy is generally considered non-negotiable, while guidelines are more of a suggestion or a best practice. Instructors make the policies, which means that students may encounter a different AI usage policy for each course.
  • UNC’s AI guidance for administrators provides some valuable insights for students: These guidelines for administrators actually give students a clearer glimpse of the university’s general philosophies regarding AI. For one, UNC states that “AI should help you think. Not think for you.” This is a perspective that most instructors will share, and that will be reflected in most professors’ AI usage policies.

Because instructors are the authorities who govern and oversee students’ use of AI, we should scrutinize their policies more closely.

What Every Tar Heel Should Know About Instructors’ AI Usage Policies

UNC-Chapel Hill is far from the only university that empowers instructors to craft AI usage policies. This is how the vast majority of universities, from UCLA to the University of Maine, handle AI rule-setting.

Here is some reliable guidance for thriving in such an instructor-led supervisory environment:

  • The first step is to check the instructor’s syllabus for any guidance related to artificial intelligence
  • When the syllabus does not clarify matters for a student, the student should speak with their instructor for more specific guidance
  • Before students engage in any academic AI work, they should ensure total clarity about their instructor’s policies and have no doubts that their use of artificial intelligence could violate either the UNC Honor Code or their instructor’s policy

Even when employing these proactive measures, plenty of gray area remains. For instance, what if an instructor’s AI usage policy could be construed to conflict with some of the more vague portions of the UNC Honor Code? Can a student be disciplined if they were following their instructor’s guidance, but their behavior could be construed as an Honor Code violation?

These are the kinds of conundrums we often encounter in our representation of university students accused of AI-related misconduct. Our Student Defense Team understands how to form strong defenses in such ambiguous circumstances—and in other circumstances, including those in which a student knowingly misuses artificial intelligence.

A Quick Look at UNC’s Adjudication of Alleged AI Misconduct

UNC-Chapel Hill’s Student Conduct Procedures are the roadmap for students accused of AI misconduct, and they dictate that:

  • A report of possible academic misconduct arrives at the Student Conduct office (while an instructor can recommend sanctions, an instructor’s discipline can occur in place of the Student Conduct process)
  • The Student Conduct Office completes its preliminary investigation
  • If the office files formal charges against the student, the matter may be resolved through an informal resolution, administrative conference, or formal hearing
  • If the student can cite a flaw in the procedures or ruling against them, they may have grounds to appeal

UNC enrollees proudly claim the Tar Heel name, but the school’s disciplinary process can feel like being trapped in an actual tar pit. This is not a place any student wants to find themselves, and it’s a gauntlet that we want to help you emerge from efficiently and unscathed.

Accused of AI Misconduct at UNC-Chapel Hill? Contact Our Student Defense Team Today.

When historians trace the history of college, they would not be hyperbolic to divide the timeline as a binary: B.A.I and A.A.I.—Before AI, and After AI. In documenting the period After AI, those historians would have to detail the rise in false misconduct allegations, flawed AI-detecting technologies, and unprecedented student temptations that this technology has brought.

Our firm has seen these historic developments firsthand as advocates for collegians accused of misconduct. We are more resolved than ever to help students overcome such accusations. Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team right away at 888-535-3686 or contact us online to discuss your circumstances and how we can assist you.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Tell About Your Case

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 […]

Zero-Tolerance Discipline Policies Can Undermine Students’ Due Process Rights

Colleges and universities have broad authority to maintain campus safety and enforce student conduct policies. However, students accused of misconduct don’t lose their due process rights simply because allegations are serious. At the higher education level, courts have repeatedly recognized that suspension and expulsion can have life-changing academic and professional consequences. As […]