As one of the premier private research universities in the entire country, Johns Hopkins University (JHU) is anything but an academic walk in the park. Artificial intelligence is a known performance enhancer for JHU students seeking excellence, but it is not one that they can use with reckless abandon.

Blue Jays studying in Brody or penning their latest novel-length essay must know their instructors’ AI usage policies. In the absence of community-wide guidance on acceptable AI use, students must review AI policies for each course as if they were a lesson in the syllabus.

We will explain some of JHU’s AI policies and procedures for handling allegations that students have breached the rules governing tools such as ChatGPT, Claude, Tome, and other AI-powered resources.

Before we dive in, know that the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team is the universal resource for students accused of misconduct. Call us today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online to discuss how we can help you overcome the daunting challenge posed by a misconduct accusation.

AI at JHU: Guidelines to Keep Blue Jays Soaring High

Without order, even revered universities like JHU can descend into a free-for-all. Administrators looking to establish order out of AI-induced chaos came up with some best practices that apply to every JHU Blue Jay, and those practices include:

  • Using university-provided AI tools when possible: It’s expected that students might use publicly available AI resources like ChatGPT. However, the university refers students to AI resources with “the appropriate privacy and security protections” and encourages their use when possible.

  • Reviewing AI-generated materials for accuracy: The school’s policies note that AI-generated facts and content can be “inaccurate, misleading, or entirely fabricated.” In this case, students are expected to double-check any information derived from AI, whether from research or AI-generated text (with the professor’s approval).

  • Respecting privacy expectations: Johns Hopkins is a research university, and JHU students may have access to more sensitive information than the average student. Those students are expected not to share proprietary or otherwise sensitive information with artificial intelligence (and those who have access to AI systems).

  • Honor JHU’s conduct policies in one’s use of AI resources: This includes academic integrity policies, which must be reflected in the way a student uses AI resources.

  • Augmenting human work with AI (rather than replacing it): Additional guidance from JHU states that students may use AI to augment their work but should not rely on it to replacehuman-generated content.

These guidelines are helpful, but they are not sufficiently specific to steer students away from misconduct accusations. For those more specific rules and regulations, we—like JHU’s administrators—look to the university’s professors.

Hopkins’ Professors Make the University Work, and They Set the Rules for Students’ AI Use

As at most universities today, professors are the rule-makers on students’ use of artificial intelligence. We can relatively safely assume that professors typically:

  • Do not permit students to have an AI pen write entire written works on their behalf

  • Do not allow students to have AI write code or generate presentations that the student is expected to complete themselves

  • Do allow students to use AI as a brainstorming tool

  • Do permit students to use AI resources in an editorial capacity (think: Grammarly)

There can be exceptions to these rules, though. There is only one best practice for students who want to use AI in a permissible way, and that is to follow their professor’s guidance (gleaned from written policies and pointed conversations about permitted and prohibited use cases).

What Johns Hopkins’ AI Usage Policies Might Look Like

Real-world examples bring general guidelines to life. Here are a couple of examples of JHU professors’ AI usage policies:

  • Introduction to Fiction and Poetry: Students cannot use AI to produce “any writing,” and may “fail the course” if they are found to have violated this policy.

  • Economics of Sustainable Energy: In this course, AI is permitted primarily for “light editing purposes.” Students can also use AI for “generating ideas, questions, or summaries” during the ideation stages of assignments.

  • University Writing Program: Students cannot submit “AI-generated output” during this program and must disclose any uses of AI during their writing processes through a provided form.

Unless these three courses happen to be the extent of your course load—an improbable possibility—, you will have more AI usage policies to study. Each professor’s policy stands independent of every other, and violating any single detail of any single policy can trigger life-changing consequences for a well-meaning JHU student.

The Storm After the Accusation: How JHU Handles Alleged AI Misuse

Wilbur Wright said, “No bird soars in a calm,” and many JHU Blue Jays have braved adversity on their way to new heights. However, while you might learn some valuable lessons, the destabilizing gust of disciplinary proceedings is just as likely to hurtle a Blue Jay to a devastating thud—leaving their reputation and future dreams shattered.

JHU’s disciplinary process is, no doubt, a high-stakes affair. We will help you get through these proceedings, which may entail:

  • A faculty-student resolution, which is generally reserved for first-time offenses

  • An Administrative Hearing, during which the Executive Director of Student Affairs meets with the accused student in pursuit of an acceptable resolution

  • An Academic Ethics Board Panel hearing, during which the accused student and witnesses are called to provide testimony about the alleged misconduct

Many students accused of AI-related misconduct must exercise their right to file an appeal. However, many of the students we represent do not need to appeal because we can resolve their cases favorably, so they do not have to face severe sanctions.

Every step you take and pitfall you avoid could define the course of your life. This is not hyperbole, as disciplinary sanctions have a way of sticking with students well after they’ve graduated

Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online today to get the trustworthy representation every student deserves.

Maryland

Tell About Your Case

Stopping Expulsions in California: Secondary Findings a Potent Defense

It’s the phone call that every parent dreads: your child has allegedly committed a serious offense at school and is facing the possibility of expulsion. Expulsion is a serious and lasting mark on a student’s record. However, California law requires that schools meet a very high standard before expelling students […]

Can Your Search History Bring You Down? How Schools Can Use Search Histories as Evidence of Misconduct

Students at Princeton University are drawing attention to the school’s policies and access related to students’ search histories on their devices. An article in the Daily Princetonian points out the ways that the university can use students’ search histories as evidence of cheating or other misconduct. Students are worried that […]

When the School Becomes the Problem: What UNC’s Botched Investigation Teaches Every Student

A University of North Carolina (UNC) student lost his scholarship and was permanently expelled from the entire UNC system after the school found him responsible for sexual misconduct. Years of federal litigation followed. And then, quietly, UNC settled. The former student, identified in court records as Jacob Doe, argued that […]

How a Cell Phone Policy Violation Can Escalate Into a Serious Disciplinary Issue

The cell phone bans sweeping the country’s K-12 schools in the last few years may sound good on paper—and educators overwhelmingly support them—but what do you do if what began as confiscation of your child’s phone has escalated into significant disciplinary action? The Student Defense Team at the LLF National […]