one note from committee is that instead of referring to starfish specifically by name we could change how this reads to “Pratt’s designated system for reporting academic integrity violations”
///
-When students submit any work for academic credit, they make an implicit claim that the work is wholly their own, completed without the assistance of any unauthorized person.-
Suggest adding “or unpermitted AI/technology” since referenced in coordinated bullets and solely not a “person”.
The definition of academic integrity as “using your own and original ideas” may unintentionally oversimplify how knowledge production works, especially in art, design, and scholarship where work is often dialogic, referential, iterative, and influenced by others.
It might be helpful to revise this language to emphasize responsible engagement with sources and influences rather than originality as such. Academic integrity is not the absence of influence; it is the transparent acknowledgment of it.Reference
The requirement that “all incidents of alleged academic integrity violations must be reported” may reduce faculty discretion in handling minor, developmental, or first-time misunderstandings pedagogically at the course level.
Could the policy clarify whether faculty retain the ability to address minor or ambiguous cases informally (e.g., through revision, warning, or conversation) without mandatory formal reporting? Preserving some instructional discretion may better support learning while still maintaining institutional oversight for more serious cases.Reference
The AIC tutorial is framed primarily as informational (“students will have the information they need”). Given that many academic integrity challenges arise not only from lack of information but also from pressure, language insecurity, cross-cultural norms, or confusion about collaboration, it may be worth articulating the course as developmental rather than purely instructional.
For example, could the stated outcome include ethical reasoning, collaborative norms in studio contexts, and responsible use of emerging technologies?Reference
The phrase “unpermitted use of AI” places significant responsibility on individual instructors to define and communicate permissions clearly. Given rapid technological change and variation across disciplines, it may be helpful to provide Institute-wide guidance or model syllabus language to reduce inconsistency across courses and departments.
Clarity at the institutional level may reduce confusion and uneven enforcement.Reference
The current Syllabus Template (linked here) refers to the existing list of examples and states that on the syllabus, these examples “should be curated or supplemented based on assignments for your course”.
I suggest that APC and Senate seek clarity on how the revised Integrity Policy will be represented on any Syllabus Template revision.Reference
Suggest retitling this policy to be “Student Academic Integrity Standards.” While this paragraph states that “our *community* must adhere to the highest standards of academic integrity”, there is little guidance here that has direct application beyond student work created in the context of a course.Reference
“assistance of any unauthorized person.”.. and technologies and/or tools? The issue we are revising to address is not really about any additional human involvement.Reference
Agreed, this is creating more confusion for students and instructors. Some institutions have a stock high/med/low sort of policy regarding AI use, which instructors can pick from as a starting point. Since we are already providing the syllabus template with the block from this policy, it would be easy to give people and option that way. From a quick search, e.g. Policy Examples
Strict Use Policy: “The use of generative AI tools (e.g., ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) is not permitted for any coursework in this class unless explicitly authorized. Unauthorized use will be treated as a violation of academic standards.”
Moderate Use Policy: “Generative AI tools may be used in this course with clear guidelines. Students must disclose when AI tools are used and how they contributed to the work. Misuse may be treated as a violation of academic standards.”
Open Use Policy: “Students are encouraged to explore generative AI tools in this course. Responsible use, transparency, and proper citation are required. Assignments will note when and how AI may be integrated.”
1. I think there should be student representation on this Board. Other schools have student membership – in some cases half the members (see link).
2. Secondly, I think this document should clarify how members are appointed/and or elected.
3. Clarify who elects or appoints them.
4. Specify membership term lengths.
As the work of this board involves shared governance/academic issues at the institute level I think it would make sense to have both Senate and Student Government participation in the process of appointing and potentially being members.
I provided links to Colgate University as reference.Reference
maybe in the terms of hearing board and the appeal board, when it’s first mentioned could this come up as the AISC committee…. and then some question about appointees and how that works, in terms of term limits and nuts and bolts. possible suggestion of involving sga membership to sit on the appeal board
The undercurrent here is a nod to AI, in addition to the standard academic integrity / honor code we’ve all experienced as students and hold up as faculty. It’s worth including a disclaimer on AI as it relates to these standards.Reference
It would be beneficial if the smaller issues could be elevated for Academic Directors as well as the LAC resources Starfish gives students. Often I’ve had to also flag challenges to my Academic Director, and at a departmental level, administrators are left in the dark on student challenges. This means students may not be receiving the entirety of available resources that could help them through challenging moments.Reference
It’s not included in here, but similar penalties can occur for failing to show up to class. If a student stops attending class, fails to participate (due to absence), and fails to turn in assignments – then any of these eventualities could occur. It’s worth including some language somewhere in this draft on participation and absences. I know this can be a department to department policy, but some language ought to be included here.Reference
Cheating via plagiarism from human sources used to be the big academic infraction, but it has already been overtaken by cheating by using AI programs, so I agree that adding more material to these guidelines about AI use would be very helpful.Reference
This is a bit nit-picky, but I wonder if (b) should just be “severe” rather than “extremely severe”. It seems to me that a “severe” infraction would warrant a hearing.Reference
I’m not sure that changing the language would limit the application of the policy, but there have been situations outside of a course where the academic integrity policy has been invoked — for example, a jointly-created class project submitted by one student without the other for an outside award that was later rescinded when the other creating student complained; work that had not been realized as plagiarized within the course being entered in other outside contests with similar rescinded awards or honors, integrity violations in admissions applications, etc. I want to stress that these incidents are rare, but also that they do happen.Reference
The current policy already requires that every infraction be reported, no matter how serious or how the faculty decides to treat it within the course itself (by accepting a replacement assignment with or without a grading penalty, failing the assignment, or awarding a failing grade in the course). The AISC is responding on behalf of the Institute, and for a first infraction the response is confidential, not recorded on a transcript, friendly, and purely educational. It’s addressed simply as a concern that the student may not have all the information or understanding needed to confidently move forward in compliance with Pratt’s requirements. The academic integrity tutorial is taken, and we review any questions the student answered incorrectly, while also working through any misunderstandings of the policy. We review the many Pratt resources that support students and their ethical work as well. This has been incredibly successful: since 2018, only three students who have completed these first-infraction obligations have ever been reported for a subsequent infraction. Part of this, I think, is also that we emphasize that academic integrity is important to and noticed by Pratt. In contrast, all but one expulsion that has taken place has been for seriously plagiarized thesis work (and I mean SERIOUSLY plagiarized thesis work); one of the hardest things to be told by a student in that situation is that they’ve never had Pratt itself so interested in the integrity of their work, that it’s always been a matter resolved behind closed doors with a lower grade or some such, but now that Pratt has taken all their money and time, Pratt suddenly cares about integrity and will not grant a diploma. I understand faculty’s wish to, as some describe it, “not escalate things for the student,” but I believe that students truly benefit when they’re reported to the AISC, especially for early and arguably small infractions. I don’t see how to upload a pdf here, but the Teaching & Learning Center has a pdf of a Keynote that gives a fuller description of how the AISC interacts with students.Reference
To Nada’s point (if I’m understanding correctly), I think inconsistency — a range of approaches to AI use — actually reflects the needs and goals of particular courses, and it should be up to the professor to clarify their own policy (which may differ from that professor’s own course to course, depending again on each course’s needs and goals). Monica’s suggested examples, though, might really help faculty with what really is a significant responsibility, though? (And Gabriel is speaking from experience as an AISC representative when he points out that AI has overtaken other infraction situations . . . .)Reference
I suggest adding that, in a case where a student has received a grade of F in the course and fails to complete these first-infraction obligations, the AISC Chair, in consultation with the Associate Provost for Academic Affairs, may request a registration hold.Reference