Talk to UsResponsible AI resourceMenuHomeModel policyDecisionsResearch & approachGet support
Leadership guide/Source library
Read the observation, check its scope and follow the official source for the full provision. These links support specific comparisons, not whole-institution rankings.
US community & technical colleges · A–LUS community & technical colleges · M–ZOther US colleges, universities & systemsInternational institutions & systems26 source locations · 24 named institutions or systems · September 2026 edition
University teaching/research GenAI policy
Active human supervision, critical thinking and verification; users accountable. Protected-data and unpublished-work safeguards; additional NDA restriction. Individual users check contractual terms and privacy settings; central approval not established.
Scope: Students, teaching/teaching-assistance and research roles; professional-staff activities excluded. Type: University teaching/research GenAI policy.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Official student guidance
Verify and take responsibility for output. When allowed, identify AI use. Course rules apply; exams prohibit AI unless authorized.
Scope: Student learning, assignments and exams. Type: Official student guidance.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Official teacher guidance
Teach responsibility for verifying content and bias. If AI permitted, require explanation of use and verification. Choose open, conditional or prohibited course use and communicate it.
Scope: Course design and assessment. Type: Official teacher guidance.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Undergraduate-school notice
Do not upload confidential thesis material. No AI authorship of core thesis reasoning; no fabricated data or whole-thesis substitution.
Scope: Undergraduate thesis/design. Type: Undergraduate-school notice.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Earlier source check; automated refresh unresolved.
University-wide responsible-use framework
Users critically review and correct outputs; preserve diverse perspectives. Data policies apply; users must handle information safely and assess tool-specific confidentiality risks. Communicate when/how AI is used through divisional arrangements so recipients can understand provenance.
Scope: University community; divisions elaborate specific rules. Type: University-wide responsible-use framework.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Official educational principles; explicitly indicative and not exhaustive
Personal responsibility and critical evaluation of AI tools/outputs underpin educational use. Transparent processes should share how tools are integrated, used and maintained. Institution commits to developing AI-literacy teaching and staff-development opportunities.
Scope: Teaching, learning and assessment; wider operational policy remains separate. Type: Official educational principles; explicitly indicative and not exhaustive.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Institutional AI policy with recorded Board approval
Third-party sharing requires consent and agreements; training data anonymized and securely stored. Ethical assessment, risk registration, research ethics approval and legal vetting of agreements. Declare academic assistance; acknowledge generated publication content.
Scope: Academic, research, administrative and community activities and AI collaborations. Type: Institutional AI policy with recorded Board approval.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Academic executive student notice
Students must verify factual accuracy under their responsibility. Warns against disclosure of unpublished/confidential information. No reuse of generated content in reports/theses; instructor directions and sanctions apply.
Scope: Student learning, reports and theses. Type: Academic executive student notice.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Official student academic-use guidelines
Students verify output and sources and remain responsible after language/code polishing. Describe tools and use; distinguish writing assistance, research methods and routine spellchecking. General permission with course restrictions; on-campus written exams normally exclude AI.
Scope: Student coursework, submitted assignments and examinations. Type: Official student academic-use guidelines.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Approved institutional GenAI ICT guideline
Users verify correctness, relevance and professional soundness and retain responsibility. Tool and purpose must match data class; personal-data processing requires prior approval; especially protected data are normally excluded. System/process/IT owners review uses; risk assessment precedes activation or material change and procurement includes vendor safeguards.
Scope: All work, study and commissioned activity; standalone and embedded AI. Type: Approved institutional GenAI ICT guideline.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Executive Council-approved policy
User verification, inclusion review and retained human decision-making. Permissions, sensitive-data restrictions and approved-system provision coexist; ambiguous scope needs clarification. IT/teaching review; approved systems/integrations; non-Copilot work outputs require prior approval.
Scope: Canadian college community and contracted third parties; all college work/study devices. Type: Executive Council-approved policy.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
President-approved GenAI instructions, official English translation
Verify accuracy, bias and suitability; users remain responsible. Avoid personal, confidential and sensitive inputs into AI tools. Disclose any academic/research/administrative AI use, including extent of contribution.
Scope: All affiliates; teaching, research, administration and services under university name. Type: President-approved GenAI instructions, official English translation.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Official institution-wide AI usage procedures
Human review before AI recommendations are implemented; users check bias. Classified-data controls and enterprise account conditions. Review external collaborations for privacy, third-party and security risks; maintain approved-tool/data lists.
Scope: Staff, students, researchers, contractors and affiliates; education, research, operations and collaborations. Type: Official institution-wide AI usage procedures.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Officially published academic/administrative GenAI policy; approval not shown
Users verify outputs and retain intellectual responsibility. No sensitive/PII inputs; additional restrictions on institutional material uploaded externally. AI assessment tools require institutional review, validation and human oversight.
Scope: Student work, teaching/research and administrative activities. Type: Officially published academic/administrative GenAI policy; approval not shown.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Official institutional AI strategy/policy; adoption record not shown
People are responsible for material submitted under their names. AI use must be described in accordance with applicable instructions. Instructor requirements govern student work; institution commits to common course/administrative guidance templates.
Scope: Students, staff, teaching, research and administration. Type: Official institutional AI strategy/policy; adoption record not shown.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Faculty-board-approved guidelines
Students own final work and must verify claims. No assessment briefs, unpublished research or sensitive data in public AI. Disclose assistance and identify AI-generated practical media.
Scope: Faculty of Media and Knowledge Sciences assessments. Type: Faculty-board-approved guidelines.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Official published employee AI development/use policy; approval date not shown
Processes should be explainable and outputs subjected to human verification. Avoid confidential and personal-data input; guidance will identify approved platform/data combinations. Projects require ethical-impact evaluation; specified human/data research has ethics-committee review.
Scope: Employees, governing bodies and controlled entities; coherent principles promoted for other stakeholders. Type: Official published employee AI development/use policy; approval date not shown.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Approved employee GenAI governance/operations policy
Accountability, verification and human intervention. Data-classification, privacy and lifecycle safeguards. Risk assessment; central approval for enterprise data or university-wide systems.
Scope: Employees, especially nonacademic operations; pedagogical governance separate and approved research excluded. Type: Approved employee GenAI governance/operations policy.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Approved overarching GenAI procedure
Accountability and output verification; critical judgment remains human. Protected data requires approved environments; personal accounts/devices require explicit approval for work. Approved-tool checks include embedded features; vendor/privacy review and code deployment approval.
Scope: Employees, subsidiaries, contractors and visiting/temporary staff; university work, teaching, research and deployment. Type: Approved overarching GenAI procedure.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Institutional AI operations policy
Human review, intervention and named owners. Data-classification controls and privacy impact assessment. System proposals require endorsement and applicable procurement approval.
Scope: Staff/affiliates managing teaching, learning and operational systems; research excluded. Type: Institutional AI operations policy.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Institutional AI operations procedure
Proposal specifies data controls, authorizations and privacy assessment. Six-stage review applies to development, procurement, deployment and activating existing-system AI features. Responsible staff need appropriate expertise or necessary support/training.
Scope: Same operational scope as parent; research excluded. Type: Institutional AI operations procedure.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Official university-system responsible/trustworthy AI principles with governance commitments
People and university units must take responsibility for AI consequences. Privacy by design, informed consent and confidentiality apply to user-provided and collected personal information. People should be informed of AI-enabled tools and understand relevant outcomes.
Scope: University system AI development, use, research and education; national leadership aspirations. Type: Official university-system responsible/trustworthy AI principles with governance commitments.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
University Executive Board-approved GenAI policy
Users accountable; check accuracy and bias; harmful/deceptive uses restricted. Consent, privacy and security obligations across development and use. Risk-based self-assessment/notification or committee approval; residual risks escalate.
Scope: Students, employees, suppliers and partners using/developing systems for the institution. Type: University Executive Board-approved GenAI policy.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Official administrative directive10.70
Verify information against other sources; users remain responsible for communicated and decision-support content. Four data-risk levels distinguish public/private tools; highest risk needs Secretary General authorization. Identifiable video voice translation is prohibited. Confidential data require IT-approved private tools and conditions; highest-risk inputs need individual authorization.
Scope: Administrative personnel in their work; teaching has separate guidance. Type: Official administrative directive10.70.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Rector-approved rules with declaration supplement
Users must verify facts and remain responsible for submitted content. Inputs must be anonymized and exclude confidential or third-party information. University-acquired or verified tools are recommended; a detailed approval workflow is not supplied.
Scope: All university community members; study, research, administration and other activities. Type: Rector-approved rules with declaration supplement.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Applicant guidance
Applicants responsible for considered submissions. Warns about provider training and inadvertent disclosure.
Scope: Admissions submissions. Type: Applicant guidance.
Reviewed 2026-09-21 · Text retrieved in September refresh.
Source library overview→Read the comparisons→
A source note is not a complete comparative review. Publication on an official site does not by itself establish adoption. Narrow academic, departmental and program documents should be read within their stated scope.