Especially during an age where Silicon Valley is synonymous with cutting-edge, Stanford University churns out more difference-making tech wizzes than any other American institution. The Stanford Research Park exemplifies how this university is inseparable from America’s technological frontier, and every student knows: You’re expected to be innovative when you call yourself a Stanford Cardinal.

So how does students’ use of artificial intelligence (AI) fit within this equation? If students are expected to innovate, doesn’t that suggest they should have unfettered access to the world’s most powerful innovations, like AI?

Not necessarily. Stanford leadership still has to ensure that students are using AI as an additive force, rather than a stand-in for students who don’t want to do the work on their own. This much is clear from the school’s AI usage policies, which we will examine now.

Before we look at those policies, know that you should call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online to defend you in the case of an allegation of AI-related misconduct.

Does Stanford Have AI-Related Guidance That Applies to Every Cardinal?

Yes, Stanford’s Office of Community Standards provides some school-wide guidance on AI use. The Board on Conduct Affairs (BCA) speaks specifically about generative AI, and says that:

  • It acknowledges that “both students and instructors have been experimenting with their use in academic settings”

  • While these tools can be valuable, they can also be used to “bypass key learning objectives,” suggesting that AI can facilitate academic misconduct

  • The school wants to “give sufficient space” for Stanford’s famously innovative instructors to “explore uses of generative AI tools”

  • At the same time, instructors need “to set clear guidelines to students” about acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI for academic, clinical, and research purposes

Here is a line that every Stanford student must pay close attention to: “Absent a clear statement from a course instructor, use of or consultation with generative AI shall be treated analogously to assistance from another person.”

In other words, Stanford University’s default stance is that using generative AI without permission is tantamount to academic misconduct.

Stanford Professors Are Encouraged to Create Course-Specific AI Usage Policies

Stanford’s school-wide AI usage policy states, both explicitly and implicitly, that professors have more responsibility than any other party to dictate the rules of AI. Stanford’s Teaching Commons runs with this premise, as it:

  • Acknowledges that many students are unaware of campus policies (like the aforementioned BCA generative AI policy), and that it is the instructor’s responsibility to present a self-contained AI usage policy

  • Suggests that a syllabus is “a way to communicate to students the most important aspects and learning goals of your course,” and therefore provides the necessary context for the AI do’s and don’ts contained within

  • Provides a comprehensive blueprint for professors to formulate AI usage policies for their classes

  • Recommends the elements that the instructor should include in an “AI policy statement,” which may be the guiding light for all specific AI policies that follow

This document also encourages instructors to get as specific as possible for the students’ benefit. Especially important at a school like Stanford, where most students are naturally inclined towards innovation, boundary-pushing, and cutting-edge tech, the Teaching Commons encourages professors’ AI usage policies to:

  • What is your AI usage policy?

  • What specific tools are prohibited or allowed?

  • In which particular contexts and use cases is AI usage permitted or prohibited?

  • What are the possible consequences of violating the AI usage policy?

  • What support is available for students who may be uncertain about AI usage expectations?

  • Importantly, what “rationale and reasoning guide this policy”

The last point is important. Stanford Cardinals tend to be naturally inquisitive, asking “why?” without hesitation in search of logical consistency, rhyme, and reason. If a professor can explain the rationale for their AI usage policy, students can better understand when AI use is or is not acceptable—especially when the use case is not explicitly addressed in the instructor’s policy.

What Does Stanford’s Honor Code Say About AI Use?

Stanford’s Honor Code does not specifically mention “artificial intelligence.” However, we can make several inferences based on what the Honor Code does say, and a few “Violations of the Honor Code” stand out:

  • Unpermitted collaboration

  • Plagiarism

  • Giving or receiving unpermitted aid on a take-home examination

  • Representing as one’s own work the work of another

  • Giving or receiving assistance on an academic assignment under circumstances in which a reasonable person should have known that such aid was not permitted

Each of these violations could be construed as applying to AI use. Someone who uses an AI program to code could be accused of “receiving unpermitted aid.” Having ChatGPT write one’s English paper could be branded as “plagiarism.”

We must view this university-wide Honor Code in conjunction with professors’ more specific AI usage policies when considering whether a student committed a sanctionable offense.

When AI Misuse Accusations Fly, What Disciplinary Process Do Cardinals Face?

Stanford’s Board on Conduct Affairs (BCA) and the Office of Community Standards (OCS) are both involved in the adjudication of alleged Honor Code violations. Here is a high-level overview of the adjudication process:

  1. Someone files a “Concern” against the student with the OCS

  2. The OCS determines if the Concern should be adjudicated through alternative resolution, a mid-level review, or a high-level review (depending on the perceived severity of the allegation)

  3. An investigation occurs

  4. If the case is not wrapped up through an alternative resolution, a hearing panel will convene

  5. A panel from the BCA determines the student’s responsibility

  6. If the BCA finds the student responsible, it will issue sanctions

Any student found responsible for AI-related misconduct can appeal an adverse BCA decision.

Sanctions That Can Result from Alleged AI Misuse

Stanford’s Student Conduct Penalty Code Bylaw lists the sanctions students might face for misconduct:

  • Formal Warning    

  • Grade adjustment or academic penalties    

  • Monetary restitution   

  • Community service    

  • Delayed degree conferral    

  • Deprivation of rights and privileges    

  • Disciplinary probation    

  • Expulsion    

  • Suspension    

Any of these sanctions could place a glaring blemish on the polished, Cardinal-red reputation that you have built before and during your time as a Stanford student. We want to help you avoid that dent.

Call the LLF National Law Firm Student Defense Team today at 888-535-3686 or contact us online to discuss your circumstances and our role in helping you overcome them.

California

Tell About Your Case

The College Accommodation Checklist and What to Do If Day One Falls Short

College students and their parents often assume that once a university approves accommodations, they remain active throughout their college journey. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Instead, most universities require students to reregister on an annual basis. If your university fails to implement your approved accommodations or creates unnecessary hurdles […]

The AI Tightrope: Students, ChatGPT, and Academic Misconduct

Artificial intelligence has become a fact of life on college campuses. While debates about AI focus on whether it is helping or hurting education, the reality is that students are already using it in large numbers. Recent studies suggest that somewhere between one-half and two-thirds of college students regularly use […]

How Do Special Education Rights Vary at Charter Schools vs. Public Schools?

Parents choose charter schools largely because they offer an individualized curriculum that traditional public schools cannot. However, charter schools often lack the special education resources required for them to fulfill their goal. Regardless, charter schools are held to the exact same federal special education standards as traditional public schools. The […]

Understanding Illinois’ Exhaustion of Interventions Mandate

Facing disciplinary action at school can be incredibly stressful for students and their families. When a school threatens long-term suspension or expulsion, academic futures hang in the balance. In Illinois, however, thanks to a landmark law, the state’s priority is keeping students in the classroom. Illinois’ “Exhaustion of Interventions” mandate […]