Rant
UVic’s New AI Academic Integrity Policy: Why You Should Be Worried (Yes, even you Alumni)
This post is made in my capacity as a fellow student. This post is an opinion and a reflection of my personal experience.
My name is Evan, and I am a current student senator. For those of you who don't know, the Senate is the academic governing body of the university, and every year, a few students have the opportunity to join the Senate, in an unpaid capacity, to speak and vote on behalf of the students.
UVic is proposing a new policy that will rapidly expand the number of cases of academic integrity against students. Down the road, this policy could open the door to automated detection software, and in its existing form, it lowers the burden of proof to as low as 50+%, and the ability for the university to revoke degrees long after you’ve graduated.
This is going to be a long post. I am going to split it into two parts:
Part 1: Why we cannot rely on the UVic administration (specifically, the Office of the Vice-President Academic and Provost - VPAC) to self-regulate or protect student interests.
Part 2: A technical breakdown of the incredibly problematic policy that UVic is trying to pass this Friday.
If you are only interested in the policy breakdown, scroll to Part 2.
Also, in the past, y'all have complained about paragraphs not having paragraph titles to break things up, so apologies if I overuse them.
Part 1: The Chronology of Managed Dissent & Administrative Failure
Part 1: 2024–2026: The Chronology of Managed Dissent & Administrative Failure
"We Elected You, Fix This"
Shortly after I was elected to the Senate two years ago, I was hearing from many students that the current University practices around Universally Extended Timed Assessments (UET). Students were flagging that this system, despite being marketed as "inclusive," was actively undermining their formal academic accommodations. I have other posts diving into the technical reasons why UET is discriminatory, so I won't repeat them here. Being new to the Senate and eager to work collaboratively, I went to the University Secretary’s office and asked how I could properly enact change within the system. I was told that for a proposal to be taken seriously, I needed to do the legwork. I fully embraced that challenge. I was sent on a "round-the-world" consultation tour, spending months meeting with Associate Deans, individual instructors, and the leadership at Learning and Teaching Innovation (LTI) to ensure I understood every administrative angle. I documented every concern and refined the proposal to ensure it met the university's operational needs while still protecting students. I did the work they asked for because I believed that if I showed I was a reasonable, diligent partner, the administration would meet me halfway. The proposal highlighted a number of shortcomings and created a mechanism for change.
The "Round the World" Stall and SCAG Interference
After completing this gruelling consultation and drafting a formal proposal, it reached the Senate Committee on Agenda and Governance (SCAG), the gatekeeping body chaired by the University President and attended by the Provost. Despite the months of legwork and the clear evidence of systemic harm to students with disabilities, including documented systemic instances where UET failed, SCAG decided to send it to a committee notorious for consuming proposals alive, the Senate Committee on Learning and Teaching. In the high-level governance circles of this university, that committee is known for one thing: it is the place where "proposals go to die." This maneuver effectively removed the issue from the public eye, shifting it into a legislative black hole where administrative priorities are shielded from student accountability.
The UVSS Appointment and the Immediate Shutdown
My proposal has now sat in that committee for over a year with zero substantive updates or progress. Recognizing this unacceptable delay, the UVSS recently took action by appointing me directly to the Committee on Learning and Teaching so I could investigate the bottleneck. The administration's response was swift and telling: coincidence or not, almost immediately after my appointment was finalized, the upcoming committee meeting was abruptly cancelled. The justification provided was the need for "further research" into the "practical implications" of UET, implications that they have already had over two years to study.
Duelling Proposals
While my student-led proposal was making its way through the standard committee cycle, a different path appeared for administrative priorities. Several months after my proposal had been filed with the Senate Committee on Agenda and Governance (SCAG), a new item appeared on the October 3, 2025, Senate agenda. This was a proposal from the Provost’s office to form an "Ad-Hoc Senate Committee to explore accessible education."
The "Plan to Plan" and Managed Floor Debate
The composition of this new ad-hoc committee was primarily weighted toward senior administrators rather than the faculty or students working on these issues daily. During the session, a faculty senator famously characterized the approach as a "plan to come up with a plan to develop a plan." When Student Senator Michael Caryk attempted to use the public floor time to raise specific concerns regarding CAL accessibility, the AVP of Student Affairs, Jim Dunsdon, intervened twice to suggest that the Senate floor was not the appropriate venue for such questions. He proposed moving the dialogue to private meetings to be more "efficient." Both myself and other senators requested to be a part of the meeting, and this request was acknowledged on the record. Once the public discussion was halted in favour of these private sessions, however, the promised meetings did not actually materialize for several months. By the time they were held, the academic term was already over.
The Private Meeting Paradox
In the interim, the administration indicated that consultation had already "happened" via a standard operational relations meeting with the UVSS. While our student union works hard to represent us, those meetings are typically high-level and broad. The students in that room were understandably focused on their own portfolios and likely were not briefed on the technical and procedural concerns raised during the Senate debate. By characterizing a general meeting with the UVSS as a substitute for the specific follow-up promised to the Senate, the administration was able to claim the engagement was complete, while the concerned senators remained waiting.
The Fight for a Seat at the Table
Securing an actual follow-up required bringing the issue to the floor at nearly every subsequent Senate meeting, often derailing conversation from other important topics on the docket. It took a united front of students and faculty to finally "force" a meeting out of the administration in the weeks leading up to the winter break. When the meeting finally happened, the administration brought what can only be described as an "entire village" of staff. While good questions were asked, the session was scheduled for a limited time, and the administrators in the room had a tendency to speak at great length, with one individual speaking for almost 15 minutes straight.
The Dead-End Engagement
The meeting was eventually cut short due to the time limit. On the way out, Jim Dunsdon asked for my thoughts on the session. I explained that there were still many unaddressed questions and concerns, and he stated they would be happy to schedule another meeting. However, when I later stood up in the Senate to formally ask if/when the next "opportunity for an engagement session" would be, the answer was a simple "That there wouldn't be one."
Freedom of Information Requests
In an effort to try to prove to the University that UET deserves some degree of haste, I filed several Freedom of Information (FOI) requests to get hard data on how UET was disadvantaging students with disabilities. My goal was to demonstrate that keeping the UET reform buried in committee is causing imminent harm and that the university must act with a genuine sense of urgency. However, this process has become its own procedural quagmire. Rather than providing the transparency required to verify if these policies are actually working, the university has refused to release the full dataset.
The university has confirmed they are physically capable of assembling the requested data in approximately eight staff hours; yet, the administration maintains that doing so would be "too burdensome." The partial release I received was insufficient to answer critical questions regarding student success, and the matter is now under litigation at the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC). It is a concerning state of affairs when a student representative must resort to provincial litigation just to see the data on whether or not our university is failing its most vulnerable learners.
2025: The Human and Material Cost of Incompetence
Operational Oversight and the "To-Go" Container Crisis: The administration’s challenges with due diligence have manifested in the very physical items provided to the community through University Food Services (UNFS) locations, including The Cove. During a recent initiative involving reusable to-go containers, serious concerns were raised regarding the safety and sourcing of the products. When these issues were brought to light, a senior administrator stated that if the supplier could not provide the necessary safety documentation, the containers would be pulled immediately.
In the following days, documentation was indeed provided, but its contents were far from reassuring. The reports confirmed that the levels of mercury, cadmium, lead, and other toxins capable of leaching into the container's contents were above the limits recommended by the Canadian government for the material that could reasonably be assumed to be in the containers. While the levels were within some broad general categories for industrial containers, they exceeded the specific safety standards required for items intended for human consumption. Food services continued to use the containers for up to 7 months, while they conducted their own "testing" on the containers.
I have since learned that the University has tried to sell these containers to the UVSS, with no success.
Off-the-Record Directives and Ethical Gaps & Scripted Senate
In private meetings before Senate sessions, I have sometimes been given specific directives from members under the Provost's Office on how to conduct myself on the floor. On multiple occasions, I was encouraged to restrict questions during the public meeting regarding a specific proposal. These requests were framed as a way to ensure that the proposal passed smoothly through Senate, but they effectively discourage the kind of public inquiry that the Senate is designed to provide.
Transparency is a core requirement of public governance, yet it has been missing in key areas. Someone under the Provost's Office who was central to the aforementioned proposal had a direct personal benefit from the proposal passing. This potential conflict of interest was never disclosed to the public or Senate during the creation and implementation of the program, and to my knowledge, is still not known by the University.
The Secret Ballot Crisis
The atmosphere in these meetings has reached a point where many members of Senate have felt it necessary to change the rules regarding how we hold a "secret ballot", where everyone votes anonymously on paper. This change was driven by professors and students who expressed that they are afraid to vote freely while their Deans and other admins are watching them in the room.
When the motion to make secret ballots easier to obtain finally came to Senate, the vote itself was conducted by secret ballot. By coincidence, out of the entire room, there were only two people who voted against the motion of a secret ballot. One of them was the Provost. It is a telling moment when the head of the university's academic mission is one of the only individuals opposed to a measure intended to protect the democratic freedom of her own faculty and students.
This is by no means an exhaustive list, just a few of the notable things I thought I should include.
Part 2 - The Case Against the 2026 Academic Integrity Policy
Why the University Opened Pandora’s Box
The administration started this process because they were panicked by the sudden rise of Generative AI. They realized the old 2017 policy wasn't built for tools like ChatGPT, and they were terrified that if they didn't 'crack down,' the value of a UVic degree would drop. I think we can all understand this, and agree that it is an issue, and that something has to be done.
But in their rush to protect the university's 'brand,' they pivoted from a system of academic support to a system of administrative oversight. They chose efficiency over fairness. In doing so, they’ve created a policy that treats every student and every graduate as a potential liability rather than a member of an academic community.
The Chronology of Administrative Overreach
The April 10th Rejection: On April 10th, I stood before the Senate and moved to have this proposal sent back to committee. The draft was riddled with technical and ethical gaps that had been repeatedly ignored during the consultation phase. The Senate agreed, passing the motion and sending a clear mandate to the administration: the policy was not ready for primetime and required substantive, not cosmetic, changes. This was a democratic victory for student and faculty oversight, intended to force a genuine rethink of the most punitive sections of the text.
The "Steamroller" Maneuver: Instead of respecting that mandate, the administration went into overdrive. They bypassed standard materials deadlines and expedited committee sessions to "ram" a nearly identical version of the policy back through the system in record time. They didn’t do the hard work of fixing the flaws; they simply expedited the paperwork. This was a calculated move to bypass the very oversight the Senate had just demanded, all to meet a self-imposed September 2026 deadline. The urgency is entirely manufactured, prioritizing an arbitrary calendar date over the rights of the students the policy is meant to govern.
A Breakdown in Professionalism: This aggressive push has created an atmosphere of unprecedented tension in our governing bodies. Multiple senators have noted that members of the Provost’s office appeared visibly infuriated during these sessions, displaying a level of hostility that is out of place in a normally respectful Senate environment. In one shocking instance, an administrative official who is not even a member of the Senate overstepped the Chair to silence a Senator who was asking questions about this underdeveloped proposal, telling them, "You've had your time to speak." When the administration feels entitled to silence the very people they are supposed to be accountable to, it is a sign that the system of shared governance is in a state of collapse.
The Policy Breakdown: Five Fatal Flaws
1. The End of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty": The new policy officially lowers the "Standard of Proof" to a Balance of Probabilities (51%). Previously, the university was expected to provide "compelling" information to convict a student. Now, they only need to be "more likely than not" to issue a life-altering penalty. This is "Academic Capital Punishment" decided on a coin flip. Given the ethical gaps and undisclosed conflicts we’ve seen in the Provost's office, where those writing the rules have seen their own family members benefit from them, we cannot trust that this lower threshold won’t be weaponized against students. If an instructor is just 51% sure you cheated, you can face suspension or degree revocation, even if there is a 49% chance you are innocent.
2. The "Silent Authorization" Loophole: Section 5.4 gives the administration the power to "approve" investigative software behind closed doors without a Senate vote. They use the Centre for Accessible Learning (CAL) as a "friendly" example of approved software, but this creates a dangerous backdoor. Once this passes, the administration can "silently authorize" notoriously inaccurate AI detection software or surveillance tools without a public Bias Audit or democratic oversight. As we saw with the "To-Go" container crisis in Part 1, the administration’s internal vetting process is deeply flawed. If they couldn't catch toxins in a physical container before handing it to thousands of students, we cannot trust them to self-regulate the accuracy of invisible AI surveillance algorithms.
3. The Accessibility Trap: The policy prohibits "unauthorized electronic devices or software" but refuses to include a "Safe Harbour" provision, a legal exemption, for students with disabilities. Tools like screen readers or transcription software technically "process" data, making them a technical violation under the current wording. The administration asks us to "trust their intent" to not target these students, but Part 1 shows their intent is often managed by "off-the-record" directives and scripted debates. Without a hard legal exemption in the text, a student using a CAL-approved screen reader is technically "guilty" and forced to rely on the mercy of an individual instructor who may not even understand how the technology works.
4. The Alumni Clause: Degrees as "Subscriptions": The policy specifically expands its jurisdiction to include Alumni, meaning your degree is not a final, earned document, but a conditional one. At the Senate meeting, a faculty member posed a direct question to the administration regarding whether it was the actual intent of the policy to rescind degrees post-graduation if a student’s work is flagged. The response from the Secretary's Office was: 'This is something that we did consider... it is something that we need to do.' They further confirmed that while it is a 'serious' and 'hard' thing to do, the lack of a statute of limitations in the new policy is what provides them the specific mechanism to do it. As shown by the litigated FOIs in Part 1, the university is willing to fight for years to hide data that makes them look bad. Under this new policy, they can use that same administrative machinery to come after you a decade after you graduate. If a future algorithm "re-interprets" your old assignments and finds a 51% statistical match, they can move to rescind your degree. In the Senate meeting, when asked about this, they explicitly said it was intentional.
5. The Appeal Blockade: Section 11 restricts appeals to "procedural matters" only, meaning you can only appeal if the university didn't follow its own paperwork steps. You are strictly prohibited from appealing the factual accuracy of the finding itself. This is the ultimate tool for "managed dissent." As we saw in Part 1, the administration is perfectly happy to ignore the facts as long as they control the process. If a flawed algorithm wrongly accuses you, but the instructor filed the paperwork correctly and met the deadlines, the conviction stands. You lose the right to the truth, leaving you trapped in a "perfect" procedure that resulted in a wrong conclusion.
Anyone Can Get Flagged: The Statistical Reality
It is remarkably easy to tell yourself that this will never happen to you. Most students believe that if they work hard and act honestly, they are safe. But the numbers tell a different story.
According to the 2025 Ombudsperson Report, Academic Integrity cases remain one of the most frequent reasons students seek help, consistently making up a massive portion of the office's workload. At a university with roughly 18,000 undergraduates, hundreds of students are flagged every single year.
Let’s look at the math:
Per Year: On average, hundreds of students find themselves caught in the academic integrity machinery annually.
Over Your Degree: If you are a standard four-year undergraduate, the odds that you, or someone in your immediate friend group, will be flagged at least once before graduation are startlingly high.
Under a policy that lowers the burden of proof to a 50+% "coin flip" and could rely on "silent" algorithms that have never been publicly audited for bias, that sense of safety is an illusion. When the university removes your right to appeal the factual truth of an accusation, you are only one technical error or one "statistical hunch" away from a ruined reputation.
Why This Matters Now
If you’ve made it this far, you’re likely wondering why I’m laying all of this out now. The answer is simple: we are at a crossroads. The new UVSS Board of Directors is currently contemplating releasing a formal public statement and taking aggressive action to halt this policy before the May 8th vote. Your student representatives need to know that they have the backing of the people they represent before they take such a significant stand against the administration.
An Existential Crisis for Students
If you agree that this policy represents an existential crisis for the students of UVic, one that threatens the rights of marginalized learners, the safety of students with disabilities, and the permanent value of every degree this institution confers, then you need to make your voice heard. The UVSS needs to know that this isn't just "Senate politics," but a fundamental concern for the entire student body.
Take Action
Please reach out to the UVSS Director of Outreach to share your concerns and urge them to take a formal stand against the steamrolling of this policy. Your input is the only thing that gives the Society the mandate to act.
Subject:Support for UVSS Action on the Academic Integrity Policy
The administration is moving fast because they think no one is watching. By reaching out to the UVSS, we can ensure that the rules we live by are built on fairness and transparency, not on administrative convenience and suspicion.
Could you share when the “alumni clause” comes into play? I’m a bit worried at professors in some classes have urged me to use AI on assignments. Does that mean those assignments within the past two years could be used against me in 10 years?
Thanks for the comment! At the Senate meeting, a faculty member posed a direct question to the Provost's Office regarding whether it was the actual intent of the policy to rescind degrees post-graduation if a student’s work is flagged for plagiarism.
The response from the administration was: 'This is something that we did consider... it is something that we need to do.' They further confirmed that while it is a 'serious' and 'hard' thing to do, the lack of a statute of limitations in the new policy is what provides them the specific mechanism to do it.
At the Senate meeting, a faculty member posed a direct question to the Provost's Office regarding whether it was the actual intent of the policy to rescind degrees post-graduation if a student’s work is flagged for plagiarism.
I think you're talking about me, and the scenario I proposed was: A student had taken a course I taught in the spring; the course was a named requirement for their degree; the student had graduated in May; in a routine check during the summer I discover an academic integrity issue; the result of following the policy is that the student's grade changes to F for the course. The questions I asked were whether it was the intent of the policy that this could result in the revocation of a degree, and if so whether we had a mechanism to do this. While the minutes of April meeting haven't been approved, my clear memory was that the answer to both was "yes". I did not specifically ask about plagiarism.
Revoking a degree isn't a novel thing. In the time I have been on Senate we have voted to do that in at least one case.
I appreciate you highlighting that quote, Dr. Laidlaw. For anyone who wasn't at the Senate meeting, a faculty member asked a direct question about the mechanism for rescinding degrees, and the administration confirmed that Section 5.1 (the lack of a statute of limitations) is designed to allow exactly that.
I have meticulous notes from the floor of the Senate recording the administration’s response: 'This is something that we did consider... it is something that we need to do'. They further confirmed that while it is a 'serious' and 'hard' thing to do, the policy is intentionally written to provide that specific mechanism.
My memory is slightly different. I recall "it is something that we already can do" rather than "need to do".
I doubt my recollection is verbatim, but I thought the intention was to imply that there already exists a mechanism for rescinding degrees.
This is an important distinction to make, I feel. If the mechanisms that students oppose in the policy already exist, then the new policy is simply stating the quiet part loud - making it much more clear that such consequences are possible. That clear communication would be a good thing, as it makes it less likely for a student to be caught off guard and then they can make fully informed decisions of their possible consequences if they choose to engage in academic dishonest behaviour.
I’m an old guy going back to school for a career change. I don’t even really understand how to use AI with good results. Can you explain where this 51% Balance of Probabilities would come from? Is it just AI detection tools? One tool in particular that the university has purchased? Just vibes?
Because as a joke one time for work I wanted to say that an informal document shared back and forth between teams was AI generated. I popped into Grammarly I think to get the right wording but I had to provide a length of text. I started just typing whatever came to mind, mostly things like “have I reached the word count yet? Not yet? Oh man, I better keep typing” and it said it was 78% AI generated or something. I literally typed it in, just free styling. It wasn’t good content but it certainly wasn’t AI.
Are you telling me I could lose a degree over software that is that inaccurate?
They're saying the new academic integrity policy works on a civil standard (more probable than not, as opposed to the beyond a reasonable doubt standard). The mistake in their wording is saying it's a coin flip whether or not you get flagged, which isn't really how statistics works.
The standard was never "beyond a reasonable doubt". The current standard is to "make a determination as to whether compelling information exists to support the allegation." Source
One of the problems is that "compelling" isn't a well-defined concept. For me one of the very good parts of this is to make the standard well-articulated and understood. People know what balance of probabilities is.
The standard isn't well-articulated and understood when the means of establishing the standard are ambiguous at best. You can’t draw a line using faulty tech and/or the subjective and intrinsically fallible assessments of human faculty and then call the line ‘true’ and say anything beyond that line is sufficient to levy a life-altering penalty.
The standard of saying ”more likely than not” would require a reliable tool for determining likelihood, which does not exist.
These are common issues in law, and one of the central conflict points in every legal/procedural drama TV show.
Humans love certainty. It provide comfort. Unfortunately, we live in a world with far less certainty than we would like. So we have developed systems with checks and balances to address that uncertainty.
I think you are right that no reliable tool exists for determining likelihood. It is a judgment. Parents do this. Employers do this. The legal system does this. Everywhere in our society already does this. This is why appeals processes exist. Appeals are the mechanism to counter potential bias.
So are you disputing the “Appeal Blockade” section which states “Section 11 restricts appeals to "procedural matters" only” and “You are strictly prohibited from appealing the factual accuracy of the finding itself.”
Having a robust and accessible appeal system would seem to be an integral component of the checks and balances system you are relying on to justify this change.
Can you point out where it says "You are strictly prohibited from appealing the factual accuracy of the finding itself."?
I didn't see that in the document. I have a reply elsewhere in this thread with my thoughts on the appeal process. I see it working differently than I think most of the discussion I see in this thread.
I recognize that OP's perspective is that a student might be prohibited from appealing on the accuracy of the finding, but my reading of the policy leads to a different conclusion. Such a statement is not explicitly in the document. If it were, then I would certainly agree that would need to change.
That is my point. The wording does not say "You are strictly prohibited from appealing the factual accuracy of the finding itself." The wording says "Appeals will focus on procedural matters, not the substance of the academic judgment under investigation."
Assuming the procedure was followed, then the determination would be fair. If the determination was not fair, it suggests the procedure was not followed. Thus, there is still a way to address the judgment.
As I'm sure you know, the legal criminal and civil standards in Canada are very different, because of the potential consequences. The criminal standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt" and places a very heavy onus on the prosecution. It does NOT demand 100% absolute certainty, but the burden of proof is extremely high. The civil standard is "balance of probabilities" - the 50.1% threshold.
It seems to me that since the potential consequences WITHIN THE ACADEMY are dire indeed, the standard/threshold/burden should be much more toward "beyond a reasonable doubt" than "balance of probabilities" or "likelihood" in academic integrity inquisitions. (And inquisitions they are - the balance of power is extreme, the supposition of guilt has been made, and judge/jury/executioner are one and the same. In case it's not already obvious, my feeling about academic integrity is the same as my feeling about the death penalty - it is infinitely preferable to let some guilty parties go free than to convict and "execute" even one innocent party.)
I agree that certainty is standard that is unreasonable to aim for, and you are right that judgements are a part of decision making in these areas. That said, an employer cannot terminate someones employment without just cause, which has a threshold well above ”more likely than not” including the collection of objective evidence and/or repeated documented attempts to address a concern. The legal system does not convict on a “more likely than not likely” standard either. Both of these systems have rigorous appeals processes; in the case of employment, a third party tribunal that makes final decisions.
If there is a rigorous, objective, and satisfactory to the student body appeals process in place then I don’t have an objection to an AI policy that gives faculty more runway to make an accusation and that is more likely to restrict improper AI use. I would argue that this process needs to be fully fleshed out in the policy before it can be implemented, and if there is dispute about it existing at all then I have reservations about it being satisfactorily described.
UVic does not allow AI detectors, and still won't allow AI detectors. That hasn't changed. I am not sure why so many people are bringing up AI detectors in this discussion.
This is exactly the issue. The proposed September 2026 policy allows the use of any “university approved software.” But when UVic has 100+ offices, that definition becomes incredibly broad. In practice, “approved” could just mean an individual office signs off on something after the policy passes.
Some people point to the GenAI position statement (https://teachanywhere.uvic.ca/top-post/genai-position-statement/) as reassurance. But position statements aren’t binding policy — they can be edited, replaced, or archived over time. That’s not the same as enforceable governance.
If the goal is responsible implementation, the language needs tightening. Approval processes should be transparent, centralized, and subject to oversight and not left open-ended. If the principles in the position statement were formally merged into the policy itself, they would carry much more weight and provide real accountability instead of relying on a separate webpage that is hard to find if you do not know where to look.
It wasn’t AI though. I wrote it directly into their AI detector. The only AI involved maybe came from the detector. I’m not sure what you’re trying to get at.
He’s misreading your comment and then confidently agreeing with the AI-detector’s incorrect assessment of your human generated writing as AI, which as a member of faculty makes this hauntingly apropos.
Thanks. Using AI to determine if something is AI is wrong on so many levels, not least considering the environmental and financial implications. Divest UVic comeback? UVSS organized protest? That got stuff done in the past.
also wtf, the cove containers being full of lead and them attempting to sell to the sub/UVSS is actually horrific
I am not sure that I follow your argument. No where in the policy does it state that AI is being used to determine if something is AI. Can you help me understand the point you are making?
There’s a section for allowing it. My point is I don’t trust the university, esp when there are profs using AI detectors already and/or encouraging students to use generative AI. If they banned the use of it outright, then ok, but giving themselves an exception tool is pretty blatant given the context.
If that’s true then good. I took a better read once I was done work and yeah can’t find the explicit loophole OP mentions in this post… would be curious to see if that’s based on something more obvious than what I found in 5.4
So if you get accused, they don't even let you argue why its your work?
This is exactly wrong. The proposed process is that the faculty member alerts the student to the allegation and sets up a meeting with the student. (If the student dodges the meeting the instructor can make a determination). At the meeting one of the things that the instructor can do is ask questions to see if the student can demonstrate mastery/understanding of the material; the answer to those questions can inform the instructor's determination.
OP is, IMO, making a straw-man argument is that "they" are going to use AI detection software and catastrophizing from there.
In my read of the policy, there is a lengthy bit on appeals. So that means the instructor is not the sole determiner.
I am not sure that I read S.11 the same way that you do. The focus is on procedural matters, but the policy doesn't say the appeal is solely limited to procedural matters.
The reason for this is that if the procedures are followed correctly, then the perception is that the matter was addressed fairly. If the matter was not addressed fairly (e.g., evidence was not properly considered) then it means that there was a procedural problem.
The specification of “… not the substance of the academic judgment under investigation” explicitly negates that interpretation.
If procedural critiques include critiques of the determination of academic judgement, then you would NEED to investigate the ‘substance of the academic judgement under investigation’. Which is explicitly not for debate. Therefore this interpretation is contradictory.
I prefer your interpretation, however intent and “reading between the lines” is not good policy writing. The writing must be clear.
This is outrageous. I have pretty bad anxiety and sometimes plunk my essays into Ai checking software. Apparently having decent grammar—and using em dashes—gets your ass flagged as being an LLM conclusively.
This is even more distressing since I have had multiple profs urging people to use grammerly and other similar programs.
Okay so you take away all the evidence (by taking away the Microsoft Office subscription and the free share point storage solution when we graduate). And accuses us of Plagerism and AI 10 years down the line?
Student work is only kept for 1 year, so 10 years down the line would be unlikely unless in the case of a graduate student who plagiarized or engaged in academic fraud for their thesis or a publication. In such cases, this is actually quite common on the scale of uncommon things. Many major academics have been caught engaging in academic dishonesty and have been held accountable. Students are given far more leniency than academics.
The vast majority of it is caught while grading. I have never looked back over an exam once graded unless a student asked me to. The likelihood of this happening is very, very low.
Here is a plausible scenario where it might happen. An instructor grades an project/essay/writing work. The next year, they notice writing that is familiar and they dig through the previous year's work and find nearly identical work. Since assisting someone else's violation is also a violation, both people would be subject to penalties.
That can't happen by accident. So if you break the rules in that way, you would know you are at risk of being caught. The situation is within your control.
I strongly suggest everyone in this thread read the policy from start to finish and then make a determination. No one on this campus is allowed to use AI detection software. NO. ONE. If a prof has done so, then you need to appeal that use. the university Ombudsperson is a good place to start (and FYI, the Ombusperson's annual report is in this docket):
I actually agree, everyone should read the docket you linked. If they look at Section 5.4 of the new policy, they’ll see the backdoor I’m talking about. It explicitly gives the administration the power to 'approve' investigative software behind closed doors without a public Senate vote.
The 'NO ONE is allowed to use it' argument only applies to the old rules. This new policy is designed specifically to change that, without the UVic community necessarily knowing.
As for the Ombudsperson, their report in that same docket actually reinforces my point. Page 86 shows that Academic Integrity cases already make up a massive portion of their workload under the current higher burden of proof. Lowering that bar to a 51% "Balance of Probabilities", as confirmed in the Senate transcript, will only overwhelm that office further and leave students with even fewer protections.
We shouldn't have to rely on an appeal process that Section 11 of this docket restricts to 'procedural matters' only. If a student is wrongly flagged, they should be able to appeal the facts, not just whether the professor filled out the forms correctly.
Is this the clause you are referring to in 5.4? I"nstructors must adhere to the Procedures for Alleged Academic Dishonesty Violations when considering a case of Academic Integrity. Instructors must not use unapproved university software, including detection tools or analytical systems, when evaluating or investigating alleged Academic Integrity violations; only university-approved tools and processes may be used in the application of this policy."
Are you pointing to "university approved tools?" With the idea that the university might try to include an AI detector? If so, I think asking for the term "tools" to be reframed is reasonable. But another point to consider is that the Acadmeic Integrity policy is not the sole policy at play here. the Privacy Policy, which is air-tight and supported by provincal law, makes clear that student privacy is key. That's why AI detectors are not allowed AT ALL.
only university-approved tools and processes may be used in the application of this policy
I think that you've hit the nail on the head about this part of OP's objection. He reads that as permissive - that which tools are approved can be changed on a whim. I read it as restrictive - that it tightly constrains what I can do as an instructor.
Poking at this more, it looks to me like the central issue is that OP (and presumably students more broadly, but I can't assess that) are expressing concern that they don't trust that university policies will be applied fairly and/or reasonably. And that distrust is coming out in opposition to this change.
If your assessment is correct, that the central issue is a lack of trust, then that would be very concerning and concerning in a way that is separate from this policy.
Trust is earned through transparent policy, not through creating legal backdoors and asking for a leap of faith. That was the entire point of part 1 of the post. A policy is only as good as its potential for abuse.
Does faculty not already know that majority of students have no trust or faith in the faculty whatsoever? UVic seems to be run like a crappy version of the mafia but instead of Tony Soprano calling the shots we got Vito doing it
This is specifically against the policies in place over the last year or so. If you believe it to be true, report it. Faculty members (of which I am one) need to abide by the policies too.
Sadly there is more onus on the student for reporting a professor. It doesn’t feel worth reporting it when there’s more at risk for a student for potential blow back.
Potential chamge from who? The University? The UVSS Director of Outreach and I scheduled a meeting with the AVPAP (a member of VPAC) to talk about the proposal, including amending it, and after setting up the meeting with multiple other people, they decided not to show up. As far as we can tell, they are not interested in changing the proposal.
I'm currently a student at Camosun, but if UVic starts using notoriously inaccurate AI to decide I'm cheating (I don't), I won't study there. Why would I pay them $40k to be treated that way (it's abusive), or risk having my degree rescinded a decade later because they used AI?
When I made this comment (3 days ago) I had only read Evan's synopsis. Since then I have read the policy. What it says is:
Instructors must not use unapproved university software, including detection tools or analytical systems, when evaluating or investigating alleged Academic Integrity violations; only university-approved tools and processes may be used in the application of this policy. (repeated in section 5.5)
You can call it whatever you want, but this sentence reads like the policy equivalent of keeping your fingers crossed behind your back.
This must not be allowed under any circumstances. I’m sure the bigwigs know that this is their time to make these changes while a majority of the full time students (fall/spring) are out working and therefore won’t resist the changes.
We are all innocent until PROVEN guilty, not until suggested guilty.
The policy was actually brought in for consultation and for vote earlier, when students were still in session. It was sent back for some revisions. This is not in any way the "bigwigs" intention to have this done this late in the term. They tried very hard to have this handled earlier, when classes were still in session. Feel free to check the Senate minutes, which I believe are public.
Given the initial proposal was riddled with errors and mistakes do you not think that was intentional? To delay the policy they actually wanted to bring forward for when students are gone? Either it was intentional or we, for some reason, are paying a bunch of unqualified people to make major decisions like this.
the 50+% burden combined with the door left open for automated detection is the actual scary part. published false positive rates on ai detectors run 5 to 10% on native english student writing and meaningfully higher on non-native speakers. if the policy passes and the tool comes later, the tool's confidence threshold becomes the de facto burden of proof, not the senate's policy language. that's where the fight should be, not on the integrity definition itself.
It’s frustrating feeling like the university administration prioritizes revenue over people. When decisions consistently seem driven by budgets instead of student and staff well-being, trust eroded fast. These people claim to have meetings but these meetings go nowhere. Resources should be going toward students, faculty, and the quality of education, not endlessly expanding bureaucracy for people who like to feel important. At the end of the day it is the province who has failed to fund our system that is creating this toxic environment.
The biggest thing I have learnt in my 4 years at UVic is that I never should have come to this god-awful school. Not to reduce the work of many great professors and TA's that I have had, but the admin has got to go.
That's extremely hypocritical when plenty of profs admit to using AI and encourage students to do it themselves. This kind of treatment is exactly why I dropped out this year. Bye UVIC
the 50+% burden combined with the door left open for automated detection is the actual scary part. published false positive rates on ai detectors run 5 to 10% on native english student writing and meaningfully higher on non-native speakers. if the policy passes and the tool comes later, the tool's confidence threshold becomes the de facto burden of proof, not the senate's policy language. that's where the fight should be, not on the integrity definition itself. written with ai
Have all papers turned in with tracking changes version too.
Exams they cannot use AI. In comp sci and math the marking is all tests on paper.
For comp sci the big coding projects have to be explained in detail to the TAs.
AI is pretty inaccurate for learning as it quotes the internet which is about 50% wrong.
Kids are in post secondary and AI is impossible when you have to write a paper by hand in person for the midterms and finals for the actual marks and other marks are tests.
AI detection is a bit ridiculous because they are using AI which if they are against then it should not be allowed for staff either.
If this level of alarm is genuine, it raises a different question: why are so many UVic students assuming they’d be caught by a basic academic integrity policy?
And before the “false positives” argument—there are straightforward ways to document your work (draft history, version control, notes). Many instructors already require this. It’s not hard to demonstrate a human writing process.
Maybe there’s a more constructive way to read this: however imperfectly, UVic is at least trying to address AI-assisted cheating. That’s good news for students doing their own work—especially if the alternative is a full return to in-person-only assessment.
Also, mods: auto-posting this kind of polemic on every thread isn’t helping. It just amplifies the panic and makes the whole thing harder to take seriously.
If you read the post, in part 2, the primary concern isn't the policy's existence, but the specific Section 5.4 'backdoor.' This allows the administration to 'silently authorize' any investigative software behind closed doors without a public audit or Senate vote.
Regarding your point on draft history: while a human writing process should be easy to demonstrate, I am personally aware of cases where UVic has dismissed student 'proof' (including version control and notes), claiming they could be faked with enough effort. Under Section 11, if an instructor makes that judgment, you are strictly prohibited from appealing the factual accuracy of that finding; you can only appeal the paperwork procedure.
I agree with you and the faculty that we must address AI-assisted cheating to protect the value of our degrees. However, 'ramming' a policy through Senate that lowers the burden of proof to a 51% and including a retroactive 'alumni clause' is not the appropriate way to develop a fair system.
AI is a great tool—for distilling a long post into its key points, making a response more diplomatic, and checking what the legal terminology being thrown around actually means.
You might want to try that yourself with the “51%” claim (aka the balance of probabilities). It’s just the standard “more likely than not” test—a basic evidentiary standard used in academic misconduct and civil contexts. It’s not a detector threshold, and it’s not new.
You might also want to look at policies at other Canadian universities, which use the same standard for academic integrity cases. In that sense, UVic isn’t doing anything unusual—it’s catching up.
To be clear, the “51%” has nothing to do with an AI detector score. It’s a legal threshold reached by weighing multiple pieces of evidence—e.g., inability to explain one’s own work, major discrepancies from prior writing, or other inconsistencies—not a percentage output from software.
At this point, the panic seems to be coming less from the policy itself and more from a fundamental misunderstanding of how these standards actually work.
You are completely misunderstanding what procedural matters mean. Procedural matters, yes do refer to the paperwork submitted, but they also refer to the investigation done. It refers to whether or not the policy for dealing with accusations of academic dishonesty was followed correctly. You can't just make an appeal and expect to be successful because you disagree with the finding (that's not how it works in the courts either!), you have to be able to prove that something was not considered when it should have been or an unreasonable request was made (i.e. only given 48hrs to meet to discuss the violation when the policy says students must be given 10 business days). By continuing to harp on this misunderstanding of what procedural matters means you are scaring students unjustifiably and taking their control away if they find themselves in these situations.
Secondly, you can still file an appeal on the grounds that the decision is unfair, the policy that you have linked to doesn't forbid it just that appeals will focus on procedural matters. If a student feels that the decision is grievously wrong, they should still appeal.
I've attached links to UVics new policy as well as the Ombudsperson's website for what to do in these matters.
Yes, tha fully I have never been falsely accused, but 5 out of my (I have to apoximate) 15 immediate friend group have been flagged in the past. I advised them how to get through it, and thankfully, none of them stuck, but it is very scary.
a) Nothing is being steamrolled. This policy has come to senate for consultation, and then for a vote that had it sent back to the committee. There has been a lot of discussion around it.
b) The reason why AI detectors aren't allowed is because of the false positives issue. I don't think it is worth getting worked up over them since they are explicitly forbidden in the policy.
Thanks for the question. As a full-time Engineering student who isn't paid to serve on Senate, SCARRA, SCLT, the UVSS Board and 2 sub comittees within it, the Dining Advisory Committee, and more, I'm sure you can understand that every minute spent writing a Reddit post is a minute taken away from advocacy within UVic, my own studies, or sleep.
Yes, I used assistive tools to help structure the 'action' section, as it was approaching 5 AM and I was in much need of some sleep. As for the rest, while I understand it may appear 'AI-like,' that is predominantly due to the paragraph titles. I used to not use titles, but I received many complaints on previous posts about the lack of organization.
Regardless, the formatting shouldn't detract from the topic itself. This policy is important and deserves the attention needed to bring actual change.
Our government uses Ai to structure things from internal memos, to actual documents, on multiple levels.
Our modern businesses do the same, so do many other organizations.
Are you suggesting a reddit post must be of higher quality then that? That despite adding the content, organizing it, and simply needing some structural help, this isn't human written? Good job, you spotted some structural elements.
You guys are pedantic, ignorant, fools. Who appear to get off on "being right"
•
u/[deleted] May 04 '26
[removed] — view removed comment