The start of a new academic year offers an essential moment to share guidance regarding the expectations, procedures and resources governing academic integrity at Brown. As you may have seen reported in news media over the summer, educators across higher education, including at Brown, have found themselves at the center of a growing global conversation regarding generative AI and the potential rise of academic cheating. While GenAI tools present exciting opportunities for teaching and learning, they also introduce new challenges to original scholarship and ethical academic practice. 

Navigating this rapidly evolving landscape is something we are committed to doing together as a community, and I write today to ensure our community of faculty, students and staff is fully aware of the procedures and protections we maintain to safeguard academic integrity at Brown. As technology around us continues to evolve at a rapid pace, academic honesty remains our collective anchor as a teaching and learning community, and our collective responsibility. Brown has maintained a Standing Committee on the Academic Code for decades, and through clear, predictable and fair adherence to the Academic Code and the Academic Code, Graduate School Edition, we sustain the value of a Brown degree, protect the integrity of the hard work of all members of our community who participate in the academic life of the institution, and maintain trust with one another.

For Faculty: Procedures and Due Process to Uphold Academic Integrity

Faculty play a vital role in creating an open, supportive learning environment while also establishing clear standards for academic integrity. When navigating a potential violation of the Academic Code — whether it involves possible plagiarism, unauthorized collaboration, exam misconduct or improper technology use, including AI — it is critical that faculty follow established University review processes rather than attempting to reach resolutions outside those processes. This ensures that concerns about possible violations are handled equitably, and that students receive procedural safeguards and consistent treatment across all departments.

When concerns arise, the formal framework to investigate, adjudicate and resolve potential violations follows a clear, structured process. This process is designed to support faculty and students, prioritizing educational growth over punitive outcomes and ensuring open dialogue, due process and a clear resolution. The process is as follows:

1. Initial Inquiry and Discussion
   When an instructor suspects a potential violation, an essential early step is to contact the student to discuss the concern, share the work in question and share the intent to pursue the University’s process for reviewing potential violations. It is important that instructors treat all such potential violations consistently to avoid concerns of uneven treatment.
2. Referral
   If the instructor believes that a violation occurred, the instructor is expected to submit the allegation to the appropriate channel: 
   • For undergraduates: Submit a formal allegation via the Academic Misconduct Referral Form.
   • For doctoral and MFA students: Potential violations should be sent to graduate_dean@brown.edu, addressed to the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs (currently interim).
   • For (non-MFA) master’s and certificate students: Faculty should reach out directly to the Associate Dean of Student Affairs (masters_studentaffairs@brown.edu).
   • For medical students: Faculty should reach out directly to the Associate Dean for Student Affairs (medstudentaffairs@brown.edu). 
3. Investigation and Adjudication
   • Undergraduate: The allegation is reviewed by a designated case administrator on behalf of the Standing Committee on the Academic Code, an elected, faculty-led body that reviews all submitted materials; meets with the parties involved as necessary; and, per the Faculty Rules and Regulations, determines whether the allegation will be resolved by a “lower-level disciplinary administrative procedure,” an academic code hearing panel or dismissed for insufficient evidence.
   • Graduate: In cases where the student admits to a violation, the faculty member deems the violation to be relatively minor, and the student has no record of prior violations, the faculty member may propose a resolution to the relevant dean (per the code, either the instructor, student or dean can decide if a case proceeds to adjudication). If the dean agrees, the faculty member proposes the resolution to the student. If all parties agree, the matter can be thus “administratively” resolved without a code hearing. If any party believes a hearing is necessary, the cognizant dean will organize one.
   • Medical: Medical students are expected to adhere to Brown University’s Academic Code. The Medical Committee on Academic Standing and Professionalism reviews allegations of violations and may elect to refer the matter to the University’s Standing Committee on the Academic Code.
4. Resolution and Sanctions 
   • Undergraduate: If a student accepts responsibility via the administrative procedure or is found responsible by an academic code panel, the committee consults with the instructor and then has the responsibility of determining the appropriate code outcome and academic consequence, ranging from a written reprimand, a zero on the assignment, failure of the course, directed No Credit, or academic or professionalism standing consequences to suspension or expulsion. The committee also maintains centralized records to ensure equitable treatment in future cases.
   • Graduate: If a graduate student accepts responsibility via the administrative procedure, the academic consequences will be articulated as part of that procedure. If a graduate student’s case is brought to a code committee, the committee has the responsibility to determine, in consultation with the instructor, the appropriate code outcome and academic consequence. The relevant dean will maintain records to ensure equitable treatment across cases — past, present and future. 

Faculty can access course design support, including GenAI course policy guidelines, through the Sheridan Center for Teaching and Learning.

For Students: Responsibilities and Protections for Coursework and Educational Activities Beyond Coursework

At Brown, students are expected to embrace the principle and the standard that all submitted work reflects students’ original learning and critical thinking. Students are encouraged to understand the resources available to them and their responsibilities for ensuring their coursework is assessed fairly and that they are abiding by the AI guidelines of each course.

• Open Dialogue on Expectations: By carefully reviewing the syllabus for each course, students can ensure they understand what is permissible on a specific assignment or exam. Standards regarding collaboration, citation, resource sharing and technology use (including GenAI) will vary by course and discipline depending on the learning goals. Students are always encouraged to reach out to their instructor before submitting their work if there is any doubt about expectations. We are here to help students navigate these boundaries.
• Engage with the Code and Graduate Handbook: Every member of our community with a role in the academic enterprise is responsible for understanding and abiding by the Academic Code, including students. If a student ever feels unsure about a policy, they should treat it as an opportunity to start a conversation with their instructor or relevant dean.
• Rights and Due Process: If a faculty member submits an allegation of a code violation, the Academic Code safeguards fundamental rights for students at every stage of the review process. These include the right to receive written notice of allegations, review all submitted evidence, present a personal statement for panel review and consult with a member of the Brown community as an advisor, and a right to appeal.

Moving Forward Together

Upholding integrity is a collective responsibility shared by every student and course instructor. Beyond serving merely as a set of rules, the processes supporting academic integrity underpin the trust that allows collaborative research, debate and discovery to thrive at Brown. 

As we all navigate a rapidly changing educational landscape, Brown remains dedicated to fostering an environment where intellectual curiosity, academic freedom and ethical responsibility go hand in hand. We encourage open, ongoing conversations in classrooms, departmental meetings and advising sessions about how we maintain these standards together.

Thank you for your partnership and shared commitment to academic excellence, equity and institutional trust as we begin the new academic year.

Sincerely,

Francis J. Doyle III
Provost