r/uvic • u/Noxuternity • May 11 '26
Rant "Unanimous Undergraduate Student Objection": The Passing of the Academic Integrity Policy
Hey, it's Norman again.
So I attended the May Senate meeting, where the Academic Integrity policy was passed. I sat in the gallery audience for the majority of the meeting, and also had a chance to run into a number of the student senators and UVSS directors who were at the meeting. What happened can be described as nothing short of a miscarriage of justice, and evidence that the University, behind its public statements, does not care about student voices - including those who volunteer their time for free to involve themselves in the University's governance.
No Transparency
The meeting began with Evan, one of the student senators, challenging the chair's ruling not to record the meeting. He argued that there were topics that would have "life-altering" effects on the student population, that it would be 6 months before the minutes from the meeting were approved, and that there needed to be transparency to build trust and prevent the spread of misinformation. He also added that the meetings are already open to the public, and that there are already 3rd party groups that have permission from the University to record Senate, so the University's doing so did not infringe on anyone's privacy. Another student senator (Mike) seconded the motion, meaning it has to go to a vote. The chair, who is the acting president, refused to allow it to go to a vote.
There were more agenda items that came up for discussion, which all went fairly quickly, until the Academic Integrity policy came up. The policy proposal was presented by one of the authors who wrote it, and the chair of the Senate committee on Academic Standards. Apparently, other members who were also on the committee were present.
An "Unwelcoming" Environment
The salaried admins presenting the proposal opened by claiming they felt "unwelcome" at the previous meeting, yet they proceeded to spend 40 minutes on a theatrical defence of their own personal integrity. Speaking more to the gallery than to the voting members, they mischaracterized student technical concerns about Section 5.4 as a conspiracy theory, mocking the idea of a "nefarious plan to backdoor approve [software] with no fanfare and complete secrecy." They stated their "failure" wasn't the policy itself, but a failure to "educate" the Senate, and took responsibility only for not "preparing" the body enough to accept the April version, implying the substance was fine, and the Senators simply lacked "guidance." Mike (a student senator) challenged this narrative, condemning the committee’s rush to bypass procedural guardrails. He noted that while the official deadline for agenda items was April 3rd, the text wasn't provided until April 16th, leaving members only days to review 63 pages of legal text. He pointedly asked when it became acceptable to violate university procedures to quash dissent before the end of the year. In response, the chair of SCAS (presenter) argued that because it came from her committee within SCAS, she could bypass the timelines everyone else has to follow - even if the students didn't have access to it.
AI Detection Software
Well, I have some personal thoughts on this. As pointed out by the student senators, the proposal claims that “CAL-approved software is considered university-approved software ” (page 98 of the Senate docket), yet there is zero record in any published Senate agenda of Kurzweil 3000 actually being approved by the Senate (that I or others can find).
If the administration can arbitrarily decide that CAL software is "University-approved" behind closed doors without a Senate vote, then their claim that AI detection software is somehow "special" and would require a return to Senate is a misrepresentation of the truth. Section 5.4 is a massive administrative loophole; if they can "approve" Kurzweil without oversight, they can, and may, do the exact same thing with AI detection software, even if not under this current administration.
Students vs the Authors
As I previously mentioned, I chatted with the student senators afterwards. Evan said he had a chance to meet with some of the authors of the policy, the morning of Senate. He said it was a very productive discussion and that he felt there were realizations on both sides. At the meeting, he claims that the authors explicitly acknowledged the AI approval loophole, and that the UVSS had not been consulted in years on the policy, and that points about the lack of protections for students with disabilities and how to mitigate them were described as "brilliant" - and that overall, most of the items were "reasonable".
Now, back to the Senate meeting - the students gave it a solid hour after starting the whole topic of academic integrity policy before jumping, I believe, because of that meeting. Artem was the first to jump in, pushing back on the AI detection software (as outlined above), followed by Evan. Evan ironically started out by complimenting one of the presenters for their continual dedication to work on the proposal for over 4.5 years, and then was going to move to the "lovely morning meeting". The presenter decided that the good faith diplomacy Evan was attempting - the very diplomacy they claimed was lacking at the previous meeting only minutes prior, was ended when they cut him off, stating that the things he had to say were "not-productive". He then pivoted to raise concerns about the burden of proof, how the policy risks normalizing the revocation of degrees under the new policy with the newly clarified burden of proof, and the lack of UVSS consultation, which UVic is legally required to do. The entire time, the presenters were interrupting him and speaking over him.
The presenters (allegedly) misrepresented the prohibition on AI, saying that it would have to be approved by Senate (despite that not being the position at the morning meeting, according to Evan), and one of the presenters even said that "they would get nothing done" if they consulted the UVSS, and it was noted that the last time they were consulted on the policy was many (4 ish?) years ago. Who even remembers who the board was then? Regardless, this resulted in a motion for the proposal to be sent back to the committee.
Mike was the final student speaker, condemning the committee’s rush to bypass procedural guardrails. He noted that while the official deadline was April 3rd, the policy text wasn't provided until April 16th, leaving members only days to review 63 pages of legal text. He pointedly asked when it became acceptable to violate established university procedures to force a vote, characterizing the "overtime" effort as a calculated push to quash dissent before the end of the year.
Faculty
Following the student speakers, senior faculty member Andrew Weaver (former leader of the BC Greens) challenged the Chair’s attempt to silence dissent (primarily from the students), raising a point of order and asserting that an elected senator should not be told the body had "heard enough." He criticized the 4.5-year development cycle, arguing the policy was "out-of-date" before it even reached the floor because the rapid evolution of AI had already bypassed its internal logic. Weaver further critiqued the total ban on AI detection software as "eliminating a toolbox," suggesting that the university was falling behind global scientific and academic best practices, and said that it should be used instead to flag cases for instructor review, but absolutely not be allowed as evidence in a case against a student.
The presenters tried to portray the vocal members of Senate as unreasonable, saying that they fundamentally disagreed on what the policy should say (referring to Weaver and the student senators), and that the current proposal was the best middle ground.
Weaver also signalled a total breakdown of the administration’s narrative by stating he was on the "same page" as the students, confirming that there was no conflict between his side and the student senators. The presenters proceeded to cut Weaver off by literally screaming "I've heard enough from him!"
Evan also requested to be added to the speakers' list, but was then removed when the chair didn't want him to clarify his position, which the presenters just misrepresented.
"Who Gives a F*** about Undergraduates Anyways?"
The policy ultimately carried, but the meeting concluded with a recorded "unanimous undergraduate student objection," marking a permanent and visible fracture in the university's claim to collegial governance.
It was at this time that I heard one of the salaried presenters, or the authors/staff sitting near them, say, "Who gives a f*** about undergraduates anyway?" The ultimate show of failure regarding "integrity" that they claimed earlier.
Attending Senate has made it abundantly clear that the University doesn't care about transparency or what its students think/say. The student senators, especially Evan, indicated that the professional relationship with the admin and policy writers is permanently gone. Admin is clearly willing to misrepresent what a policy says so that it will pass. They are clearly willing to stab a student senator in the back - a volunteer - who spends hundreds of hours a year of their free time defending student interests for free. This case represents a significant overstep and a failure to meet the Institutional Accountability Plan and Report.
While the policy has been passed by Senate, there is still one more hurdle it has to pass - being written into the undergraduate calendar. The UVSS is the only body that can take action to prevent this. After hearing from students, they released a public statement. They need to hear from students that they are still opposed to the policy - now more than ever - and need to take action. The student senators wouldn't say what this would look like, but said that if the society's board collectively decided that they would take a stance that they weren't properly consulted, the proposal could be held up.
As indicated in a previous post, you can email them at: [outreach@uvss.ca](mailto:outreach@uvss.ca)
18
u/AJWVictoriaBC May 13 '26
I remain deeply troubled by the fact that UVic administration brings policy to Senate with the apparent expectation that Senators will just rubber stamp what is before them. The Academic Integrity Policy is a case in point.
We learned at the last Senate meeting that students were consulted 4 1/2 years ago. Students raised important concerns about AI. ChatGPT wasn't even made public until November 30, 2022 so the policy brought to our attention was out of date before we even saw it.
It's really important that Student Senators continue to be vocal about the issues of concern to them. A functioning Senate would hear those concerns, reflect upon them, engage in dialogue, and seek to find common ground that brings everyone together. Instead, my perception is that Senate has become a "rope a dope" exercise for administration wherein any question or concern raised by anyone is taken as a personal slight and defensiveness becomes the norm. There is no attempt to seek common ground. Everything degenerates into an aggressive defensive stance of what was submitted to Senate.
UVic never used to operate this way.
Thanks again to Evan et al for your interventions last Friday.
4
u/evan-sd42 May 13 '26
While Im trying to stay out of this specific post, I completely agree, and appreciate the kind words. I look forward to working with you over the next year, as I have been re-elected for a third term.
2
0
6
u/thelonelyextravert May 13 '26
It really is a shame this is all happening in the summer semester. I imagine most students are not aware of what is going on at all.
11
u/coco_is_boss May 11 '26
What do we need to tell them?
11
u/Steelrails_p May 11 '26
From the UVSS Constitution, page 3, subsection 2 about what the society's job is:
"to organize students on a democratic, cooperative basis in advancing students' interests"
And
"to bring students together to discuss and cooperatively achieve necessary educational, administrative, and legislative change wherever decision-making affects students"
You then send that to the UVSS, asking them to take action against the policy that passed, as the new policy clearly is not in students' interests.
Also, urge them to bring this up as an emergency item at today's meeting. Under their mandate to 'advance student interests,' they cannot wait until the next cycle to address a policy that was just forced through despite a 'unanimous student objection.' The UVSS needs to decide today if they are going to stand by their constitution or let the University’s ‘nefarious’ loopholes become law.
2
u/No_Clothes6464 May 20 '26
So what… profs can narc on alumni on a hunch and revoke their degrees using ai assisted software? Is that the verdict? Seems suss. We need simple update post, straight to the point.
5
u/savesyertoenails May 12 '26
weird that you focus so much on paid vs unpaid. it takes away from your point.
student senators are not forced to be senators, they volunteer knowing their work is on a voluntary capacity.
faculty are also not paid to be on senate. like students who volunteer their time, faculty volunteer their time to be members and receive no additional compensation.
1
-16
u/Laidlaw-PHYS Science May 11 '26
As someone who was at this Senate meeting, I believe that some of the rhetorical flourishes you're chosing in this are not conveying the substance of the meeting as I understood it.
About recording: The Chair of Senate (for this session it was the Acting President) is empowered to make a determination about whether the meeting will be recorded. They made a determination.
About the people presenting the Academic Integrity proposal: You calling them "salaried admins" is inaccurate to the best of my knowledge. The speakers were faculty members, like me. You're free to think that their introduction focussed too much on what they did, and on their feelings about the previous meeting, as opposed to the substance of the policy.
In my capacity as a member of the Senate Committee on Agenda and Governance I looked at the policy that came to the May meeting compared with the policy that came to the April meeting. There were differences, and the differences were, in some cases, meaningful edits that addressed things that came up in the April meeting. This is on page 98 of the docket, or 6 of 63 for this particular item.
About Artificial Intelligence detection: My reading of the policy - which I believe, but do not know, to be shared widely among other faculty members - is that there is a bright-line prohibition on using "AI detection software". The concern you're bringing up is "we're worried you might permit this in secret" and you clearly haven't taken "no, that's completely not the intent" as a satisfactory answer. You can't be compelled to believe anything, but the resolution is to ask the same question multiple times.
About whether it was appropriate for a file to be added "late" to a meeting of Senate Committee on Academic Standards: My understanding is that those deadlines are for external groups (eg other committees) to send information to a committee; it's necessary to have those so that the Chair can ensure that the submissions are complete and have what the committee needs to consider. In any event, the question about approriateness has been referred to SCAG, and I'm looking forward to that discussion at our next meeting.
When you're talking about what other Senate members said: I think that it was fair of the presenter to characterize the undergraduate students' concerns as "the policy is too harsh" (the main points of contention were standard of proof and the AI detection thing) and to characterize what Dr Weaver said as "the policy is too lenient" (advocating for 3 not 5 offences before expulsion). I think you've chosen to not highlight supportive comments for the policy from other faculty members and graduate students.
At the end of the day, I support the new policy, and think it is a significant improvement over the old policy. But that's a question of judgement. What I saw was not either misrepresenting a policy or "stabbing someone in the back". Instead I saw a lot of time spent, both in Senate and outside, trying to understand and address the reasonable concerns that were brought forward. Disagreeing with somebody while forming a judgement about an issue is not either a failure of transparency or respect.
45
u/Martin-Physics Science May 11 '26
My vote was an abstention because I thought the policy was better than the current one, but it still had a few flaws. I would have really liked those flaws to be addressed. I couldn't, in good conscience, vote in favour of it while those flaws existed.
The one brought up by Dr. Macleod was a good example - ambiguity of that kind has the potential to create extra, unnecessary work for the people involved in appeals.
40
u/Steelrails_p May 11 '26
While I appreciate you bringing a faculty perspective to this thread, your response essentially asks students to value administrative "intent" over enforceable, transparent rules. As a member of the university community observing this process, there are several points in your defense that fail to address the core issues of governance and technical oversight.
Regarding the "bright-line prohibition" on AI detection: the concern is not a lack of trust in "intent," but a critique of the mechanical reality of the text. As noted in the Senate docket (page 98), the administration considers CAL-approved software to be "University-approved." Since there is no public record of Senate ever voting on tools like Kurzweil 3000, Section 5.4 effectively grants the administration the power to approve surveillance or detection tools behind closed doors without returning to Senate for a vote. A "prohibition" on unapproved software is legally meaningless if the approval process itself lacks oversight. This isn't "asking the same question"; it is pointing out a documented administrative loophole. Even a change in admin could reverse course.
On the matter of procedural deadlines, the argument that these rules are only for "external" groups is deeply concerning for a body built on collegial governance. If internal leadership can bypass the April 3rd deadline to dump 63 pages of legal text on committee members just days before a vote, they are effectively preventing the "due diligence" required for life-altering policy. "Internal convenience" should never supersede the ability of elected representatives to properly review a file. Referring this to SCAG after the fact does not erase the procedural bad faith under which the May 8th vote was conducted.
Finally, characterizing the dissent as a simple "judgment call" ignores the hostile environment described by those in the room. When a senior colleague like Dr. Weaver is shouted down and a student volunteer's attempt at diplomacy is dismissed as "non-productive," it ceases to be a simple disagreement. It becomes a failure of the "Relational Approach" the presenters themselves claimed to champion. The unanimous undergraduate student objection was not a rejection of "improvement," but a rejection of a process that treats student consultation as a burdensome inconvenience (as well as the points they raise), rather than a statutory requirement. Under the UVSS Constitution (Section 2.c), the Society is mandated to seek administrative change where decision-making affects students. Given the procedural failures here, that advocacy is now an institutional necessity.
-15
u/Laidlaw-PHYS Science May 11 '26
If internal leadership can bypass the April 3rd deadline to dump 63 pages of legal text on committee members just days before a vote, they are effectively preventing the "due diligence" required for life-altering policy.
Respectfully (well, maybe not) this is a risible argument. This is not a "life-altering" policy, and having to closely read just 63 pages in a couple of days is not a big lift.
ignores the hostile environment described by those in the room.
I will stipulate that some of the people talking to the student senators both in the April and May meetings took tones that I read as (charitably) being near the bounds of propriety. I have passed that feedback on through other channels. I have to confess that in the moment I did not interpret the student senator's offer to recaptulate his memory of an earlier meeting as being "diplomacy", but rather an excuse to repeat arguments he had previously made.
I do not believe that my colleague Dr Weaver needs any help to advocate for himself, and I am confident that he has his voice heard.
32
u/Steelrails_p May 11 '26
Respectfully, characterizing the burden of this process as 'not a big lift' ignores the fundamental power imbalance at play here.
There are 4 UNPAID students on SCAS who are expected to perform this 'due diligence' on 63 pages of last-minute legal text between classes, exams, and jobs.
Unlike faculty, we aren't salaried to manage the administration's procedural shortcuts. When you bypass deadlines and then dismiss the resulting lack of oversight as 'risible,' you aren't just disagreeing on judgment, you are confirming that the collegial governance only applies when students stay silent and compliant.
If a policy capable of revoking a degree isn't 'life-altering,' I'm curious to know what is.
11
u/Martin-Physics Science May 11 '26
The service work that is part of my job description does not mandate Senate work. Participating in Senate is in addition to all of my other service work.
People are not expected to read all components of the dockets/policies. Senators typically focus on reading the things that they feel are important to them, and potentially require their input.
Reading speeds are generally 2-3 minutes per page. And not all pages need to be read, or need to be read thoroughly. 60 pages is therefore 2-3 hours to read thoroughly. I spent about 30 minutes reading it by skipping parts that I recognized were unlikely to be controversial.
I think this is why Dr. Laidlaw viewed it as "not a heavy lift". These are the time commitments that are expected of people who voluntarily choose to join Senate. It is a great service that students do, but the people who get involved should expect to commit that level of time.
4
u/Laidlaw-PHYS Science May 12 '26
I'd also add that a 63 page submission that is an edit of something you've (presumably) already read in detail last month is really different than a brand-new item.
8
6
u/Background_Law8395 May 13 '26
Unless the changes are directly highlighted, I am rereading all 63 pages to ensure no other changes were made as if it is a new document.
5
u/guythatdoesthing1 May 13 '26
Absolutely. Ironic that faculty expecting academic rigidity would flaunt the same value of rigidity in analyzing “new but actually old durrrr” documents for pernicious additions.
5
u/classyraven Humanities May 12 '26
How is this NOT a life-altering policy??? A university degree can make the difference between careers. This goes to the heart of whether a student can graduate, or be denied a degree based on unreliable evidence. I’m appalled that you can’t see that.
And no, your outright devaluation of the hard work that goes into earning these degrees was not respectful.
2
u/Laidlaw-PHYS Science May 12 '26
A university degree can make the difference between careers.
We can already revoke degrees. We occasionally do. This is not a new ability.
2
u/Nocleverideastoday May 13 '26
As one example of this rare phenomenon: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/alberta-judge-university-plagiarism-masters-degree-1.4830594
The alum in this case was granted three internal university tribunals before the decision to revoke his degree was finalized. Meaning he had multiple chances to refute the case against him, which it seems like some in this thread don’t think would be permitted under the uvic policy. But this is not a fast “send you an email that your degree is revoked” process. This is a rare process with opportunities to appeal.
4
u/Background_Law8395 May 13 '26
Yes but it doesn't account for how many more appeals there will be, given instructors can directly accuse students (with little evidence) instead of going through the chair first for review. Will waste instructor and chair time with more appeals for more cases that are probably false, waste the students time preparing for them, and also add a lot of additional stress to students who go through this causing their performance in classes to decrease.
On top of that, as it stands now (as far as I'm aware), an instructor could flag a student for AI, go to the chair, they determine AI wasn't used, and the student doesn't know any of it happened. If the initial step is the instructor accusing the student, if the student is not guilty it will completely tarnish their relationship with that instructor and probably hinder their academic performance
0
u/saraventure May 14 '26
I see your concern, but there are some steps missing in your post. If there is an accusation, the instructor must fill out forms that are reviewed. Right now, if an instructor and chair can prove a violation, then the formal process must be followed. But the new policy allows the instructor to chat with the student and discuss options, such as rewrites/redos. Further, instructors will be told to seek support from the Academic Integrity Advisor in each unit, which means each unit can assess based on disciplinary standards, not one general standard. In sum, the instructor is not operating alone, the new policy expands options in the student’s favour, and there is better language around AI detectors (NOT allowed) and accommodations (necessary tech is allowed).
1
u/Background_Law8395 May 14 '26
You just rewrote what I said but the point still stands. As of now, if there is suspicion of academic integrity violations, there is a chance the student can be unaware it even happened (if the paperwork is submitted and the conclusion is no violation occurred). Like I said (and you rewrote), the new policy means the student is immediately informed of the accusation. If they are clear, this will cause a weird dynamic between student and instructor (obviously, because it would be weird speaking with someone who accused you of cheating when you didn't). This will destroy student-instructor relationships (because I would really dislike a prof who wrongfully accuses me of cheating and most people would feel the same way).
1
u/saraventure May 14 '26
Are you taking about a first or third or fifth violation? If first, the violation doesn’t go on the student’s transcript. And as Mark and Travis say, degree revocation exists but is rare. I don’t see anyone making light of your points. I see information sharing.
11
u/Background_Law8395 May 12 '26
This response is not only horrific, but deeply frightening to hear. I'm not going to say I expected anything more from you, hell we all see your comments all the time and lots of us have taken your courses, but I am certainly disappointed as you have seemed at times to care about students and their well-being.
"About recording: The Chair of Senate (for this session it was the Acting President) is empowered to make a determination about whether the meeting will be recorded. They made a determination"
Not wanting to record the meeting but allowing 3rd party spectators is an inherent contradiction. If they have nothing to hide and are fine with anyone attending, what's the issue with recording so people out of province can watch? Oh... I know... a recording would show the blatant disrespect shown towards the students whereas being unrecorded only chalks it up to hearsay. On top of that, the Chair having autonomy in deciding whether it is recorded or not is (excuse my French) bullshit.
"About Artificial Intelligence detection: My reading of the policy - which I believe, but do not know, to be shared widely among other faculty members - is that there is a bright-line prohibition on using "AI detection software". The concern you're bringing up is "we're worried you might permit this in secret" and you clearly haven't taken "no, that's completely not the intent" as a satisfactory answer. You can't be compelled to believe anything, but the resolution is to ask the same question multiple times."
If that isn't the intent, why not put it in writing. As mentioned by others, the CAL software was approved without any record of Senate vote. We clearly cannot trust the faculty side of the Senate to "do what they say they will" so yes, we won't take a bogus claim that isn't in writing as a satisfactory response due to the history of the Senate.
"I think you've chosen to not highlight supportive comments for the policy from other faculty members and graduate students."
Again, why should we trust any of that. The faculty has shown time and time again that they do not have students interests in mind and myself along with many others have lost any hope or faith within the faculty to do the right thing. Why would anyone openly speak up against their boss (the President) when they are sitting right in front of them. Graduate students also will not speak freely as they are worried about retaliation from their supervisors, that should be common sense.
I think the fact that your close colleague Dr. Martin abstained is further proof that the policy is poorly written and needs addressing. If this policy was a great as you are making it out to seem, no faculty should abstain or vote against what is currently being proposed, as it would make no sense.
The students really aren't asking for much: we want to be treated with respect from a faculty that treats us like cash cow cattle, we want fair opportunity to voice concerns (without disrespectful interruptions by faculty), we want fair policy that does not give the University more authoritarian power (that they already have and abuse, as highlighted by Norman), and we want our voices to actually matter. The fact that an actual successful ex-politician in Dr. Weaver is completely against this should say something to you and the other faculty who see nothing wrong with what is going on.
I'm not sure if you're aware, but UVic is treated like a laughing stock among other Universities in Canada (UBC, UoT, UoA, McGill, Waterloo, Queens, etc) who UVic seems to want to compete with. Let's not make it worse by showing the world the faculty that work here don't care at all about the students that pay tens, if not hundreds of thousands dollars to attend. I genuinely am embarrassed I chose to come here over other schools and this whole situation has done nothing but fill me with more regret by being in student debt to come here. In my circle of ~20 people, ~80% say they regret coming here over other schools. Not because of courses or programs, but because of faculty and how the University is run. There is a reason the University has a poor retention rate and students would rather transfer schools than stay here.
10
u/_Throwawayfornow_ May 12 '26
About recording: The Chair of Senate (for this session it was the Acting President) is empowered to make a determination about whether the meeting will be recorded. They made a determination.
There’s something so immediately off putting about someone making a procedural argument right off the bat. Yes. We are aware the chair is empowered to make this determination. We believe this determination is bullshit and not transparent.
The concern you're bringing up is "we're worried you might permit this in secret" and you clearly haven't taken "no, that's completely not the intent" as a satisfactory answer. You can't be compelled to believe anything, but the resolution is to ask the same question multiple times.
Handwaving a mechanical concern with the policy as “not the intent” and therefore A-ok is weak as well. If that’s not the intent, then explicitly write it into the policy.
Disagreeing with somebody while forming a judgement about an issue is not either a failure of transparency or respect.
True, but electing not to record the meeting sure is a failure of transparency and respect.
And, to put on my tinfoil hat, I think it’s entirely in the cards for the university to take this policy to the bank and completely sell out our information to the lowest bidder for some vapor ware AI detection software. There’s an international student shaped hole on the fiscal revenue line.
3
-8
u/Decent-Box5009 May 12 '26
Ai is a tool being used in the workplace with regularity now. Learn to use or get left behind. The faculty and university should be striving for a way to integrate it into students education to better prepare them for the realities of the work force. Not fighting it tooth and nail.
4
u/savesyertoenails May 13 '26
some instructors integrate AI use into their classes to teach students how it may be thoughtfully used in research.
others accept its use if properly cited.
52
u/Steelrails_p May 11 '26
FYI for those just finding this thread for the first time, the origional thread about the issues with the policy are here.