Academic Judiciary Committee Fall 2025 meeting report

The AJC met by zoom Thu Nov 13, 2025 10:00 AM

In attendance:

Kristina Lucenko, Leslie Marino, Samuel Dodd, Brady Nelson, Christine Gilbert, Jing-Rui Cheng, Neta Dean, Benjamin Martin, Matt Reuter, David Rubenstein, Julie Huang, Sharon Nachman, Andrew Flescher, Sharon Martino, Odalis Hernandez, Faith Matranga, and Wanda Moore

1. Review of judiciary hearing statistics

	F 22	SP 23	F 23	SP 24	F 24?	Sp 25	Sum 25
REPORTED ACCUSATIONS	277	128	102	85		92	29
APPEALING	53	33	2	20		20	14
NOT APPEALING	224	95	91	65		66	14
FOUND RESPONSIBLE	44	24	9	11		11	2
FOUND NOT RESPONSIBLE	9	9	2	5		7
AI cases	NR	NR	21 (20%)	9 (10%)		21 (23%)	17(59%)

The increase in the proportions of AI-based accusations during summer 25 was noted.

2. Policy updates- focused on the post-hearing appeal process

a. Reviewed current post-hearing appeal process

b. Described proposed changes (changing post-hearing appeals from two- to one- level appeal) (see Senate Report for details)

c. Discussed the details of the proposal - The AJC was unanimously in support of the idea that the general standard for a post-hearing appeal should be restricted to a single appeal to the Assistant Provost designee, and that the review of such an appeal be time limited to 10 business days.

d. A draft document that details the justification and rationale of the proposed one-level appeal would be distributed to members of the AJC to allow a careful reading/editing before submission of the proposal to the University Senate with the goal of an expediated submission.

3. New Business

a. Discussed outreach to faculty about academic judiciary (especially junior faculty )- There was a discussion about some current problems related to faculty, especially junior faculty, who may be unaware or misinformed about how to deal with students who are suspected of violating academic integrity. Some ideas about how to implement outreach were discussed. One simple suggestion, given that the new AJC now spans departments almost campus-wide, was to ask each member to have discussions with their respective departments during faculty meetings to inform their colleagues about the processes. In our next spring meeting, it is hoped that we can document such outreach.

b. Discussed department-specific /AI issues/Respondus recommendations.

Neta Dean reported widespread problems in the Biochemistry and Cell Biology department with online exams proctored by Respondus, where video recordings revealed that many students were using additional devices during exams. As a consequence of this widespread problem, the department recommends that when possible, in-person rather than online exams be used for assessment.

Leslie Marino described the efforts of the French Language department to educate students about the proper and improper uses of AI when learning a new language. The emphasis of good communication with students about this topic, as well as explicit syllabi statements that make clear expectations has had a beneficial effect.

Andrew Flescher described the two key guiding principles used in School of Public Health (whose judiciary process is separate from most of the campus). These are (a) never accuse a student unless the evidence is clear, convincing and well organized and (b) encourage faculty NOT to try to handle problems internally. The committee noted that these principles should be universal across campus.

David Rubenstein described Graduate School policy, which is to make clear to students, what is and what is not allowed with regard to AI. The Graduate School generated a document that contains expliclty policy statements that can be used by different programs. These statements represent the gamut of least to most stringency. His recommendation is that every department on campus should (a) have a policy and (b) require all courses run by that department to include a detailed AI policy which may be more or less stringent than that of the department. These policies should be sufficiently detailed to describe permitted AI usage for all the key milestones experienced by their students (papers/exams/etc). This Graduate school policy document was distributed to all the members of the committee, who will bring up this topic with their respective departments and/or programs.

Matt Reuter also discussed the importance of explicit policy statements and the need to communicate these to students. He shared an insightful link (https://www.historians.org/resource/guiding-principles-for-artificial-intelligence-in-history-education/) to a document published by the American Historical Society, entitled Guiding Principles for Artificial Intelligence in History Education . Its principles are generally applicable to all fields and include a useful table in Appendix 2 that can be modified for generating policy.

Wanda Moore informed the committee about the news that the Academic Integrity office is in the search process for a new hire.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:51 AM