As a sort of Silicon Valley Southwest, Austin is no stranger to cutting-edge technology. Few cities in the United States have embraced the potential of AI to the extent that Austin has, and you would expect leaders at the state’s flagship university to follow suit. As Longhorns know, though, that’s not uniformly the case.

UT Austin, like most universities, has more than one policy regarding students’ use of artificial intelligence for academic purposes. Instructors determine the policies for each course (and, in some cases, for individual students). This approach creates an element of unpredictability for students, who must take concerted steps to avoid allegations of AI misuse.

If you or your student is accused of using artificial intelligence in a prohibited way, the stakes are high. Some students might face dismissal, while others might face other sanctions that might cause irreparable harm to their reputations and professional goals.

Defending students is our mission. We urge you to embrace our extensive experience in this field. We will craft a personalized strategy for your defense, whether the goal is to help you avoid sanctions or to secure the least punitive disciplinary agreement possible.

Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team at 888-535-3686 or contact us online as soon as you become aware of an accusation of AI-related misconduct. Get the help you deserve (and may, quite frankly, need in such consequential circumstances).

The University of Texas at Austin Issues Some AI-Specific Guidance for Every Student

Many university policies seem to suggest that the typical student knows virtually nothing about how to conduct themselves. This is actually a helpful approach, as it compels schools to provide general guidance on virtually every aspect of student life, including how students might use (or refrain from using) artificial intelligence in their academics.

UT Austin addresses this topic, too, by explaining that:

  • Students should review their instructors’ policies before using AI in any capacity: University-level guidance states that students should review their instructors’ syllabi statements before using AI in any academic context. If such a statement is unclear or nonexistent, a student is urged to “ask your professor or TA before using AI tools in your coursework.”
  • Longhorns should err on the side of disclosure: Even if a student believes their use of any AI platform is undeniably within the rules, they are encouraged to “cite any quotes, paraphrasing, and ideas you get from AI, just as you would with other sources.”
  • Everyone must be aware of AI-related security issues: Many AI platforms utilize users’ inputs in myriad ways, raising privacy concerns. For this reason, Longhorns are expected to “avoid submitting any sensitive or personal information” into resources like ChatGPT.

When we speak of “AI-related misconduct,” we generally mean students using AI in a way that affords them an unauthorized advantage or benefit from an academic standpoint. With this in mind, every student at UT must protect themselves from misconduct allegations by becoming familiar with each of their instructor’s policies.

UT Austin’s Conduct Code Suggests That AI Misuse May Qualify as Plagiarism (and Therefore Qualify as Misconduct)

One more quick note on school-wide AI guidance at UT.

UT’s policies regarding Student Conduct and Academic Integrity do not explicitly address students’ AI use. However, these policies allude to “plagiarism” as:

  1. “When a person represents another’s material as their own work without attribution.”
  2. “When a person misrepresents citation or attribution for purposes of an academic advantage.”
  3. “When a person submits essentially the same work for two assignments without the permission of the Faculty Member.”

Students should avoid any behavior that could constitute plagiarism, as this form of misconduct is sanctioned in all circumstances.

However, in most cases, the question of whether a student engages in AI-related plagiarism or any other form of AI-related misconduct depends on the details of each instructor’s rules.

There Is No Lone AI Usage Policy at the Lone Star State’s Premier University. Instructors Vary in Their Approaches.

In answering the question of whether a student can use AI in any way within their academic pursuits, UT policies state that “It’s up to the faculty’s discretion for each course.”

When it comes to accepting or permitting students to use AI, UT Austin instructors may fall into three broadly defined camps:

  1. Total prohibition of AI: Some instructors implement a clear, no-exception prohibition of students’ use of AI. These instructors might want to keep their policy as simple as possible, minimize the risk of misconduct, or have other reasons for it.
  2. Acceptance of students’ AI use in limited circumstances: This has become the most common approach to AI usage policies. Students may use AI for select purposes (like outlining an essay), but are expected to submit only work they’ve generated on their own.
  3. Virtually unfettered acceptance of students using AI in their work: Some instructors broadly encourage students to explore AI’s benefits, but typically add the caveat that students disclose exactly how they have used AI in their work.

Even when you know which category an instructor fits in, slight differences in each instructor’s policies warrant your full attention.

What Longhorns Can Expect When They Are Accused of AI-Related Misconduct

UT Austin’s “Conduct Procedures” come into effect when a student is accused of AI-related misconduct, and you can expect:

  • An investigation led by a representative of UT’s Student Conduct and Academic Integrity body
  • A meeting to discuss the allegation
  • A possible Administrative Disposition (which would require you to accept responsibility for the alleged wrongdoing)
  • A possible hearing
  • The opportunity to appeal an adverse ruling, given the grounds to do so

You have rights throughout the adjudication process. We will help you exercise those rights, including your right to deny the allegations and appeal any ruling you believe is unfair or overly punitive.

It’s not easy to get into UT Austin, and for good reason. A degree from UT is valuable, and we don’t want to see this opportunity jeopardized. Whether you choose to admit wrongdoing or deny an allegation you believe is baseless or exaggerated, we are the team to assist you.

Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team at 888-535-3686 or contact us online as soon as you learn that you or your student is suspected of AI-related misconduct.

Texas

Tell About Your Case

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 […]

Taking a School District in WA to Court to Protect Students’ Title IX Rights

The LLF National Law Firm’s Education Law Team will be suing a school district in Washington state for its failure to meet its Title IX reporting obligations in the case of an elementary school student who claims they were bullied and sexually assaulted. The student, a third grader, now suffers […]