Faculty FAQs

To promote academic integrity, become familiar with the Academic Integrity website. Also make sure to provide a clear academic integrity policy section on every syllabus for a course, as well as going over this section with students before they submit any assignments.

Instructors are always recommended to speak to a student about a potential academic integrity violation before/after submitting a formal violation letter. Instructors and students are sometimes able to remedy the academic integrity issue through communication, setting clear expectations, and allowing for resubmission if a student was unsure of the correct techniques/expectations.

Any time an instructor imposes sanctions because of an academic integrity violation, the instructor must formally notify the student using the Online Notification Process via Campus Connection (campusconnect.depaul.edu). This notification must occur before the end of the third week of classes in the term following the quarter in which the violation occurred (summer sessions are excluded from this time frame). This step is important because it allows the student the right to appeal the sanction. If this step is not taken, the student has the right to reach out to our office and request a hearing in front of the AIB. 

The instructor is free to impose any sanction up to, and including, failure in the course. Sanctions should pertain to the violation the student is alleged to have committed and should not assume that the student is incapable of honest work (e.g., instructor who catches a student cheating on a quiz may choose to fail the student for the quiz but should not demand that the student sit alone for all future quizzes). Initial sanctions are reviewed by the AP who may request the sanction be modified if it is deemed inappropriate. If an instructor believes that a student should receive additional sanctions (e.g., suspension, dismissal) beyond course sanctions, the instructor can request a hearing in accordance with Section 7.1 of this Policy. 

Yes, instructors are able to withdraw academic integrity violations, whether they had a discussion with the student who was sanctioned, came to an agreement, or decided the violation did not occur. However, instructors cannot withdraw an academic integrity violation without also withdrawing the accompanying sanction (ex. If a student was issued a 0 on an assignment due to a submitted violation, this grade must be revisited). The Academic Integrity Office must be provided evidence of a remedy before the withdrawal process is completed. Please email academicintegrity@depaul.edu with questions about the withdrawal process.

AI falls under the category of Plagiarism in DePaul’s Academic Integrity Policy. Plagiarism: Any use of words, ideas, or other work products attributed to an identifiable source, without attributing the work to the source from which it was obtained, in a situation where there is a legitimate expectation of original authorship. This includes, but is not limited to: 

 • Directly copying any source, in whole or in part, without proper acknowledgement that it is someone else’s. 

• Paraphrasing another’s work or ideas without proper acknowledgement. 

• Self-plagiarism (the use of one work product to obtain credit for multiple assignments) without requesting permission from the current instructor. For example, a student is not allowed to use one paper to fulfill the requirements of more than one assignment without obtaining permission. 

• Submitting a work product prepared by someone else (e.g., Generative Artificial Intelligence, research papers purchased from another person, website, paper mill, etc.) as one’s own work.  

In the context of group projects/assignments, a student will be viewed as guilty of plagiarism committed by another student in the group if, and only if, he/she (1) knew or should have known that the work was plagiarized, and (b) had sufficient time and opportunity to report the plagiarism to the instructor but nevertheless submitted (or agreed to submit) the assignment to the instructor with the intent of receiving credit for the submission. 

The goal is to benefit instructors.  

Instructors have the right to fit AI into their syllabus how they see fit, which is why syllabus statements are so important. Syllabus statements tell students (as well as the Academic Integrity Board) what is expected of them within the class. It is the first piece of documentation that the AIB looks at during hearings, to see if students had clear expectations on AI usage (what is allowed vs. not allowed). 

 Consider AI models like Grammarly, which is common among international students. Is this allowed? Consider all aspects of AI usage. Is AI allowed for outlines, drafts, brainstorming?