Â鶹¾«Ñ¡

Students and instructors may refuse to use GenAI for a multitude of reasons.  If GenAI is part of the learning objectives of the course and it is necessary for them to use it to meet those course objectives, that is a different conversation.  

Strategies to approach student refusing to use GenAI:

• coming soon

If you'd like to gain more perspectives about refusal, you can check out these resources below. 

• "Opting Out of AI:  exploring perceptions, reasons and concerns behind faculty resistance to generative AI" is a research article published in Frontiers by Aya Shata June 19th, 2025.  
• "Writing Faculty Push for Right to Refuse AI" is an article by Kathryn Palmer posted in Insider Higher Education on March 16th, 2026.
• "She won a religious exemption from using AI at work.  The Pope's remarks could fuel similar appeals" is an article by Sarah Needleman, posted June 5 2026, in Business Insider.
• "A Student's Right To Refuse Generative AI" is a blog post by Elizabeth Palumbo from Syracuse University on August 29th, 2025.

There are good reasons you'd want your students to not use GenAI and holding students accountable for doing the work and learning is a necessary part of our classes.  AI "detection" software is one way that help us hold students accountable.  AI "detection" software are tools that suggest a probability that something has the same structure that a specific LLM would have produced.  Some only "detect" ChatGPT output as where others can check across LLMs.  There are just as many "beat detection" software out there that tell students what/where/how to change GenAI output for it not to be detected.  They can be used in the process of academic misconduct but are not considered proof that students used AI to complete the assignment.  AI "detection" software are biased and inaccurate*.  We recommend if you use them, make sure your students know you are using AI Detectors (as you are inputting their work into AI), use with caution, and that it is a start of conversation with students.  

An AI "detection"-only-approach has major limitations.  Instead, a more successful approach includes reflection & redesign to decrease likelihood of students unexpectedly using GenAI in addition to a conversation with the student about their process.  You can review strategies that discourage GenAI use/help prevent unexpected GenAI use and consider implementing a few.  This includes establishing and engaging students with your GenAI policy.  

*Here are some references about AI Detection Software

• Elkhatat et al.  (2023)  Evaluating the efficacy of AI content detection tools in differentiating between human and AI-generated text.  International Journal for Educational Integrity.  
• Coffey, L. (2024).  Professors Cautious of Tools to Detect AI-Generated Writing.  Inside Higher Ed 
• Liang et al. (2023).  GPT detectors are biased against non-native English writers.  Patterns

Gather your thoughts about what makes you suspect the student used GenAI.  Keep in mind that AI "detectors" are not proof nor are these indicators mentioned below:  

• Prompt/engagement with GenAI leakage: students paste part of their conversation with GenAI into the assignment (only true proof aside from them admitting it)
• Language level and vocabulary exceeds usual capacity and/or is unnaturally flawless
• Inconsistent voice
• Generic responses: lack of personalized insights/reflection, weak connects to course concepts/lectures/discussions/speakers, ideas that sound plausible but lack disciplinary nuance, unsupported claims
• Incorrect content/references:  reference doesn't exist (major red flag and likelihood of GenAI use) or exists and does not actually say what is said in the assignment
• Formulaic structure:  excessive headings or bullet points, inconsistent formatting from previous work
• Document history/timing:  document history shows mostly copy/paste elements, student is not logged into Canvas long and quiz/assignment was completed too quickly

Start with curiosity rather than accusations - have a live conversation with your student about the assignment.  

1. Ask the student about how they approached the assignment (i.e. what was their process) and/or to explain their process live. 
2. Recognize alternative explanations for these indicators exist
   1. Language level and use of vocabulary exceeds usual capacity can be due to tutoring, Grammarly, revision, more time spent on assignment, outside reading.  
   2. Inconsistent voice can be associated with peer feedback and multiple drafts
   3. Generic responses/incorrect content may result from students not understanding the assignment/content and/or weak research and/or communication skills
   4. Formulaic structure could be because students followed a template
   5. Document history/timing:  a student may have completed the task in a different platform and copied over. 

If it is more likely than not that the students used GenAI, you should go to Flashline and submit the form "Student Cheating & Plagarism Sanction" in Faculty & Advisors, then Resources, then University Policies.

1. Within this process, you will make a plan for the student.  Depending on the severity of the misuse, you may have different elements to your plan.  Deliberate misuse without remorse is different than misunderstanding of a policy with remorse.  The instructor can choose to: 
   1. Send student to Academic Integrity school (student also agrees).
   2. Require course sanctions:
      1. Student submits a video of them reflecting on the course policy, their use of GenAI, and what they will do differently in the future (i.e. not reading a script)
      2. One-time withdrawal & resubmit option where the student must redo the assignment and show their process
      3. Student receives a zero for the assignment.  For multiple or severe offenses, course failure, removal from program, or university may be considered.
   3. The Office of Student Conduct and/or an Academic Hearing Panel may commence depending on the offense.  You can learn more about the entire process by clicking here.