The University of Michigan is older than the state it is named after, founded when Michigan was still a territory. Technological revolutions have come and passed, and Big Blue still stands. The school was here before artificial intelligence, and it will remain after AI has reached its final form.

However, there is no doubt that the University of Michigan, and every other university throughout the United States, has been transformationally impacted by AI. Students have never had a more powerful tool at their fingertips, and instructors have never been more paranoid that students are getting one over on them (with the help of AI).

Michigan’s AI usage policies are intended to instill order and a modicum of trust. However, we often find that these policies contribute more to confusion and disorder than they help. In these cases, the risk of students being accused of AI-related misconduct rises precipitously.

If you or your student is accused of engaging in AI-related misconduct, call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team right away at 888-535-3686 or contact us online to protect your rights and formulate a personalized defense strategy.

What Are the School-Wide AI Policies at the University of Michigan?

Though the University of Michigan does not have enough active enrollees to fill The Big House, it has tens of thousands of students who may be tempted to use artificial intelligence in questionable ways. School-wide guidance serves as the baseline expectation of how students should and should not use AI, and the guidelines touch on:

  • The ethics of using AI: Michigan’s policies note that artificial intelligence is “not sentient,” and therefore may not be suitable for use in cases where the student is seeking to make ethical judgments.

  • Security risks: It is not always clear how data input into AI platforms is used, or whether it is protected at all. Therefore, the school’s guidance urges caution when sharing information with AI platforms. This poses the possibility that students could be sanctioned for inputting proprietary or otherwise sensitive information into a platform like ChatGPT.

  • The importance of knowing professors’ policies: Like the vast majority of universities, students must look to instructors’ policies as the guiding light of acceptable AI use. These school-wide words of wisdom do not take precedence over instructors’ more detailed, course-specific rules.

  • The fallibility of AI outputs: Artificial intelligence can produce misleading or blatantly false outputs, including facts, sources, and quotations. Students who do not independently verify the veracity of AI outputs risk submitting inaccurate information.

These U-M-wide policies do not specify what qualifies as AI-related misconduct. That task is left to professors.

University of Michigan Instructors Write the Rules for Acceptable AI Use

The university’s AI-specific guidance for instructors implores them to “draft a syllabus statement” that describes “acceptable uses of GenAI in your classroom.” The school also urges instructors to:

  • Have an open discussion among their classes about the benefits, drawbacks, and ethical concerns related to AI

  • Encourage students to exceed outputs of GenAI,” meaning they should use AI outputs as building blocks

  • Establish expectations for students’ AI use (or abstinence) on “day one” of class

  • Critically, “clearly articulate their own expectations and policies for GenAI use”

Professors have a greater responsibility than anyone else to help students avoid AI-related misconduct. Without clear rules and expectations (and an open ear from their professor about use cases not clearly addressed in AI policies), students are set up to fail.

Wolverines Have to Fight for Their Reputations and Continued Enrollment When Accused of AI Misconduct

The University of Michigan’s College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) plainly details the school’s procedures for adjudicating alleged academic integrity violations. The school has a couple of possible ways to resolve such matters, including:

Instructor Resolution

This resolution pathway is appropriate when an alleged violation “is not egregious.” The instructor has a conversation with the accused student, who may be expected to either accept responsibility or deny wrongdoing.

After speaking with the student and presenting proposed sanctions (which can be no harsher than a zero on the assignment in question), the professor may either:

  1. Accept that the student did not engage in misconduct and dismiss the matter

  2. Convince the student to accept responsibility and sanctions

  3. Refer the case to the Office of Student Academic Affairs if the student does not accept responsibility for the alleged misconduct

If a case is referred to the Office of Student Academic Affairs, the following steps may occur.

Office of Student Academic Affairs Resolution

A student will meet with a Coordinator of Academic Integrity assigned to their case. During this meeting, the student can present their case and any evidence they believe supports it.

The Coordinator of Academic Integrity or the “Assistant Dean’s designee” will determine, based on testimony and evidence presented during the meeting, whether the student is responsible for the alleged misconduct.

Appeals

If a student is found responsible for misconduct (and sanctioned) by the Coordinator of Academic Integrity, they can appeal to the LSA Academic Judiciary Committee (AJC).

Acceptable grounds for appeal include violations of procedure, “significant” new evidence relevant to the case, and excessive sanctions.

The LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team Will Be Your Hard-Fighting Advocates

Students accused of misusing AI may face:

  • Failing grades on an assignment or in a course

  • A formal reprimand reflected in their official transcript

  • Probation (which might also be explicitly or implicitly reflected on their student record)

  • Suspension

  • Dismissal

  • Other sanctions

The race for graduate school positions, coveted internships, and post-graduate jobs is as contentious as ever. This is why any form of discipline is a big deal, and why you should exercise every opportunity to avoid the kinds of discipline that change the course of Wolverines’ lives.

Students facing allegations that undermine their character shouldn’t fight on their own. Call the experienced, proven LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team right away at 888-535-3686 or contact us online. We will discuss the particular allegations you face and chart the course for your defense.

Michigan

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 […]