The George Washington University (GW) is a rare school born from a Congressional charter. With a history dating back to 1821 and a location in the heart of America’s power center, GW straddles tradition and progress as few other universities do. Artificial intelligence (AI) definitely falls within the “progress” portion of GW’s mission, but even the most progressive technologies have limits and guardrails.

The integration of AI at GW is an ever-evolving process. Just as the school’s moniker is subject to change, so are the rules about how students can and cannot use artificial intelligence in their work.

While GW Revolutionaries must be aware that policy changes are possible, students must be most concerned with what is happening right now. Therefore, let us examine the current state of GW’s AI usage policies and how instructors craft the most consequential of those policies.

If you or your student faces an allegation of AI misconduct at the George Washington University, call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team at 888-535-3686 or contact us online right away. We will explain how to protect yourself (and how we can help you fight for your interests).

What Is GW’s General Approach to Artificial Intelligence as a Student Resource?

GW’s student body is disproportionately composed of intelligent, ambitious, future movers and shakers. However, even the sharpest of those students cannot read minds, and should never be expected to guess about what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable AI use.

Leadership at the George Washington University provides a general behavioral roadmap for ethical, non-problematic use of AI:

  • Practice transparency: Being proactive in reporting one’s AI use helps keep suspicion at bay. If a student provides reasonable, voluntary details about their AI use in any given assignment, they typically avoid suspicions of sneakiness or misconduct.
  • Use AI in a complementary manner: It’s GW policy that AI resources “are designed to complement, not replace, your expertise and judgment.” Brainstorming, drafting, and summarizing are depicted as complementary activities.
  • “Keep a human in the loop”: Students and others who use AI resources in the GW community must recognize the technology’s persistent shortcomings. Bias, inaccuracy, hallucination, copyright infringement, and data security issues are among the problems that human users are expected to account for.

While this guidance is primarily aimed at administrators, it applies just as well to students. These are the types of guidance that most American universities provide their students, as they are truly best practicesfor students who want to use AI without issue.

Where Should Students Seek Explicit Rules for Their AI Use?

Instructors at GW determine which uses of AI are (or are not) appropriate for their particular course, and even for particular assignments within their course.

Because instructors play such a central, even unilateral role in AI-specific rule-setting, it can help to understand the guidelines by which instructors craft their AI usage policies. GW’s leadership encourages instructors to bring order to AI in the classroom by:

  • Define cheating and plagiarism for students in the context of artificial intelligence
  • Refer students to GW policies (like the Code of Academic Integrity) that are relevant to the AI discussion
  • Encourage students to share how they used an AI resource in a given assignment (if and when students are permitted to use such a resource)
  • “Be clear in your expectations and refer to learning objectives and grading rubrics or criteria when assessing a student’s work.”
  • Understand generative AI, including its limitations, so instructors can create more informed usage policies
  • Using one’s “human skills as instructors” as the greatest bulwark against dishonesty, deception, and AI misconduct by students

GW is unique in its deployment of AI-detection tools. While many universities discourage instructors from using these tools due to concerns of inaccuracy, GW’s policy states that “Plagiarism detection tools are available and should be used if you suspect a breach in academic integrity.”

These AI detection tools are known to be imperfect in their assessment of students’ work. Instructors who might decide that a student has engaged in AI misconduct (even without using an AI detection tool) are also flawed evaluators.

Yet, once a suspicion of AI misconduct is leveled against a GW Revolutionary, the student should brace for the Battle for Their Reputation.

How Does the George Washington University Address Allegations of AI Misconduct?

Being in the heart of D.C., GW students should know how every consequential decision must follow a clearly defined process—in many cases, a complex, imperfect one. As you read about GW’s process for adjudicating alleged AI misconduct, know that our Student Defense Team can make this ordeal markedly less stressful for you.

Allegations of AI misconduct at the George Washington University fall under the scope of the Academic Integrity Process. This process entails:

  • An instructor typically initiates the academic integrity process through GW’s Conflict Education & Student Accountability (CESA) office
  • The instructor may decide to resolve the matter with a warning or other low-level sanction or, instead, refer the case for the Academic Integrity Panel (AIP) process
  • The student may contest the allegation, proposed discipline from the instructor, or both, in which case they will have three days before the scheduled AIP meeting to submit relevant documents and witnesses
  • The AIP will hear and recommend a ruling
  • The Dean or a Designee of the appropriate college or school will make the final decision

GW students found responsible for AI misconduct may have grounds to appeal, and are often smart to do so.

Let the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team Fight for a Fair Resolution on Your Behalf at GW

The word “misconduct” is more than just a word. It is an allegation that questions your very character and may threaten the reputation you’re relying on to pursue a fulfilling career after graduating from GW.

Some students make mistakes. Others face false accusations. Every one of them deserves a competent defense from an experienced advocate who cares.

Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team right away at 888-535-3686 or contact us online to discuss any AI misconduct allegations you face and how our passionate team can help.

Washington DC

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 […]