2020-2021 Information Technology Committee

There is an epidemic of students using “Artificial Intelligence” in order to cheat at Rutgers. This does not apply to legitimate uses of AI, especially in the sciences. In the humanities, we are seeing more and more students using generative AI (grammarly, ChatGPT, QuoteBot, etc.) to write entire papers, doing nothing other than cutting and pasting the paper prompt into AI. In recent semesters, some Rutgers professors have reported a majority of students in a given class for using AI as an academic integrity violation.

The academic integrity issue here is three fold. One, we have students passing off the work of another (in this case, a computer algorithm) as their own, which is a clear violation of Rutgers Honor’s code. Two, many Rutgers instructors (especially in the humanities) ban all use of AI, and students are violating that ban. Three, students are not learning anything; they even use AI to fabricate quotes rather than doing the reading (this is a major way I catch it).

The Senate should (1) Investigate how common AI use is in academic integrity violations across Rutgers campuses. Anecdotally, it seems to be exploding, but data would be useful. (2) Recommend steps to curb the cheating use of AI on campus. The goal here should not be to ban AI for legitimate purposes. But the Senate might consider, for example, requiring students to disclose when they use AI, just as they would have to disclose having a person help writing their papers. (3) Recommending how university administrators can help support faculty better and incorporate appropriate training on AI into orientations and the such.

1. How common are dual full-time faculty leadership role situations at Rutgers, and what are the rationales under which such dual roles are undertaken?
2. What is the process by which such dual role leadership situations are undertaken, regarding (but not necessarily limited to):
   1. the potentially unfilled portion of FTE in one or both positions;
   2. the identification and selection of other individuals to supplement one or both of the dual roles, including how existing procedures for filling such positions are or are not followed (e.g., is one or both role in such situations reverted to being appointed rather than competitively hired in any circumstances);
   3. the clarification of the work tasks required for each of the leadership roles held, and evaluation of performance in those roles, given that they are engaged at less than 100% FTE;
   4. assurance that potential conflict of interest is identified and pre-empted or managed?