While the rise of artificial intelligence gives way to a potentially heightened risk for students to get away with academic misconduct, the academic code does not explicitly outline what AI usage is permitted in the classroom.
Even in cases where students are accused of violating the academic code, there is no standardized method to address AI usage, according to Jonathan Pober, an associate professor of physics and former member of the Standing Committee for the Academic Code, which evaluates certain cases of academic misconduct.
Despite the shifting landscape of AI use in the classroom, the number of cases reported to the SCAC has remained consistent, according to Associate Dean of the College for the Academic Code Love Wallace.
“Over the course of an academic year, 100 to 145 students go through the academic code process,” she wrote in an email to The Herald.
When evaluating alleged inappropriate AI use, the SCAC primarily focuses on examining a student’s writing process to identify “evidence verifying a student’s writing, rather than verifying generative AI," Wallace wrote.
But this tendency is not a major change from the committee’s fundamental standards, Pober said.
“We’ve been doing this for a long time and know what undergraduate writing looks like,” he added.
The SCAC is not subject to “formal rules of civil procedure and evidence,” according to the academic code. Wallace explained that the committee issues decisions using “the preponderance of the evidence standard.”
This means that students are penalized if the committee can prove that it was “more likely than not” that a student committed a code violation, Pober said.
Students who go before the SCAC may face certain outcomes outlined in the academic code. For their first offense, students may face a reprimand, which requires them to repeat the exercise for which they were alleged of cheating. But for repeat or serious violations, students may face suspension or expulsion.
Wallace reviews all allegations of academic misconduct before students face the committee.
Wallace explained that she first determines “whether the alleged behavior, if true, would constitute a code violation.” Potential violations include copyright infringement or missing an exam to gain an advantage, among others. She then informs students of the allegation and invites them to have a conversation with her.
The meetings aim to allow students to understand the allegation, explain their side of the situation and learn about their choices going forward, Wallace explained. During this initial conversation, Wallace may withdraw an allegation depending on details provided by the student.
Students with no prior violations can choose to accept responsibility without seeing the SCAC, according to Wallace. Their penalty is then at the discretion of the professor, with consequences ranging from a warning to receiving no credit in the course.
“These students also work on a project to help them reflect on their actions while hopefully learning a bit more about themselves and Brown along the way,” Wallace wrote.
Wallace added that the spring semester typically sees the most reported cases of cheating. Alex Poterack, an associate teaching professor of economics, told The Herald that in spring 2023, he caught several of his students in ECON 1110: “Intermediate Microeconomics” collaborating on their final exam — which was explicitly not allowed.
Poterack explained that he is particularly opposed to cheating because his courses are curved, meaning that students who get away with cheating are not only getting a grade they don’t deserve, but they’re also “pushing other people down,” he said.
“People were just straight up looking at each other’s exams and kind of talking to each other,” he recalled. Due to scheduling issues, the exam was administered in a room with barely enough space, so many students were seated right next to each other.
“I’m just like, ‘What in God’s name is going on?’ ... so I just got my phone out, and I (filmed) a bunch of people,” he said. After the exam, Poterack sent out an email to the class asking cheaters to come forward. If not, he said he would write official reports accusing each alleged cheater of academic misconduct, and send them to Wallace.
Students who chose to come forward would only receive no credit for the course “and that will be the end of it,” the email read. Students who did not come forward would have to go through the formal process of academic misconduct allegations.
“Just because I am remorseless does not mean that I am incapable of benevolence,” he wrote in the email to his students.
He said many students — even some he did not catch — came forward, while others that he had caught on video did not. For those students, he carried out his promise and sent reports to Wallace.
“Then, from my perspective, it’s out of my hands,” Poterack said. “The process plays out and I have nothing more to do.”
Since the incident, Poterack has required students to sit with a seat between them and has implemented an alphabetized seating chart for his exams.
