Brown University proves that good things do last. The school has been churning out world-changing graduates since 1764, meaning its hallowed halls have seen some radical shifts in the world as we know it. No shift in recent memory has been as radical as artificial intelligence, which has changed the very way we view education, work, and even ethics.

After initially running around like chickens sans heads, the university’s administrators and instructors eventually got their ducks in a row regarding students’ use of artificial intelligence. Now, students can turn to university-wide and professor-specific policies to determine whether their AI-related conduct is permissible.

We will discuss those policies and what will happen if you or your student is accused of violating them. Before we do, know that your first move after being accused of misconduct should be to call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online.

Such accusations can compromise everything a student works for, before, during, and after their time at Brown. Don’t wait to speak with our team about resolving such an allegation in an intelligent, self-serving manner.

What Are the Brown-Wide Rules About AI Use?

From the moment students enter through the Van Wickle Gates, they are subject to rules. Conforming to those rules is a fact of collegiate life, and those parameters extend to how Brunonians may and may not use artificial intelligence.

While professors generally set the explicit rules (which we will discuss shortly), the university’s leadership has issued a few broad guidelinesfor students to chart a rough course in their AI use:

  • Refer to professors’ policies for the specifics: Before providing university-wide guidance, Brown’s leadership notes that professors “should offer clear, unambiguous information about what is, and is not, allowed in their courses.”

  • Brown’s Academic Code is another guardrail: Professors’ AI usage policies should be consistent with Brown’s Academic Code. Regardless of professors’ policies, students should ensure that their use of AI resources complies with the mandates of the university’s Academic Code.

  • Students should be forthcoming about their AI use: Students should never conceal their use of artificial intelligence for academic ends. Quite the contrary, as a student, you are expected to “give special attention to how you acknowledge and cite the output of those tools in your work.” Alerting a professor to one’s AI use can dispel any impression that the student used the technology in a prohibited, unethical, or sneaky way.

  • Students must be careful when using AI for research: University policies address the risks of entering sensitive information into AI platforms with questionable data security. Brown’s OIT Service Center advises students about how to use (and not use) AI as a research tool.

Students who follow these guidelines will, in most cases, avoid misconduct allegations. However, a closer examination of instructors’ policies is necessary for students who are most determined to protect their reputations and avoid disciplinary action.

The Key to Permissible AI Use Lies in Instructors’ Policies

If you’re looking for the key to safe passage through the treacherous landscape of AI and academics, look to your instructor’s policies. Whether it’s a written syllabus or verbal instructions provided in the classroom, your instructor’s words are the Gospel of Permissible AI Use.

Brown even provides a few sample syllabi that show how instructors’ AI usage policies vary:

  • Foundations of Instructional Design and Learning Technology: This professor has no stated restriction on AI use, instead saying that they are “going to create an assignment around” AI use to gauge how students might use the technology if left to their own devices.

  • Digital Interventions: AI & Education: This professor explains, “There are situations and contexts within this course where you will be asked to use AI tools.” However, in all other circumstances, students “are discouraged from using AI tools to generate content…that will end up in any student work.”

  • Theater courses: The AI usage policy in theater courses is “Contributions from anyone or anything else, including AI sources, must be properly quoted and cited every time they are used. Failure to do so constitués an academic integrity violation.”

There is no excuse for Brown University instructors not to have a robust AI usage policy. The university provides ample resources to craft such policies and makes clear that instructors are expected to help students avoid AI-related misconduct allegations.

How Does Brown Deal with Allegations That a Student Misused Artificial Intelligence?

The Brown University Academic Code contains the “Procedures for Academic Code Hearings.” These procedures involve:

  • The appointment of a Case Administrator to handle the case

  • The Case Administrator reviews the details of the accusation, including any questionable work provided to them by the complainant

  • The Case Administrator determines whether the allegation justified a formal hearing

  • The Standing Committee on the Academic Code conducts a formal hearing

  • The Standing Committee issues its ruling, which can include the imposition of penalties against the accused student

  • The student has five “working days” to appeal the decision to the Dean of their college

The LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team will be your advocate throughout this process. We may consult Brown’s general counsel to determine whether a fairer or more efficient resolution outside the university’s official channels is possible.

The Cost of an Undefended Misconduct Allegation Can Be More Than the Cost of an Ivy League Education

Brown University’s 6:1 faculty-to-student ratio makes it one of the few schools where students are undoubtedly deriving value from their substantial investments in their education. An Ivy League degree can be a priceless asset, even at a time when many question the value of college degrees.

You may face formal reprimand, failure on an assignment or in a course, suspension, dismissal, and other sanctions that materially diminish the value of your degree—or even prevent you from earning that degree.

We have helped many Ivy Leaguers overcome the stress and considerable threat of misconduct allegations. It’s our job to help students secure the best possible outcome in circumstances they’d rather not face.

Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online to discuss our vision for your defense.

Rhode Island

Tell About Your Case

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 […]

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 […]