The University of Findlay is developing a university-wide artificial intelligence policy that will require every instructor to publish clear AI expectations for their courses while preserving each professor's authority to decide what constitutes appropriate use. The shift responds to student confusion over wildly different AI rules between classes and faculty requests for more institutional guidance.
Faculty reviewed a draft of the proposed policy on Aug. 28, 2026. The framework establishes a common baseline for AI use across the university without dictating specific rules for individual courses or disciplines. The university's existing guidelines, published July 27, 2023, encouraged instructors to create their own policies. The new approach adds a requirement that every course include a clearly stated AI policy.
Why the university avoided a blanket policy in 2023
Dr. Harley Ferris, assistant professor of teaching in English and director of the DeLong Writing Center, said faculty intentionally stopped short of a university-wide policy when drafting the original guidelines in 2022 and early 2023. The reason was simple: AI use varies too much between fields to regulate with a single rulebook.
"We specifically chose not to call it a policy because we wanted faculty to have their own decisions," Ferris said.
That stance has shifted as both faculty and students asked for more consistent guardrails. The proposed policy still leaves specific AI rules to individual instructors. Ferris said the Center for Teaching Excellence will help faculty develop their course-level policies.
The tension between flexibility and consistency
Justin Rheubert, assistant professor of teaching in biology and co-director of the Honors Program, illustrates why rigid rules don't work. He permits AI for some assignments and bans it for others, depending on what students are meant to learn. The same tool that helps in one context can undermine learning in another.
"If you write this overarching policy that's very generalistic in nature, you are going to negatively impact somebody somewhere. But we should have a policy that states how we operate with AI within the institution," Rheubert said.
For students, the patchwork of expectations creates practical problems. Gabby Reck, a senior animal science/pre-veterinary student, described a landscape where some professors actively encourage AI and others threaten automatic zeros for any suspected use. She has also been uncertain whether tools like Grammarly count as AI use. "I do think that having guidelines in place for all professors to go off of is a good idea," Reck said.
What the current guidelines already say
UF's existing guidance states that AI should augment human thought, not replace it. Instructors are encouraged to base AI decisions on the learning outcomes of specific assignments. The proposed policy builds on that principle rather than replacing it. The change is structural: requiring every instructor to make their expectations explicit, in writing, for every course.
Why this matters for educators
UF's approach mirrors a tension playing out across higher education. A single university-wide AI rule sounds clean but ignores how differently a writing seminar and a biology lab use the technology. Requiring documented policies per course gives students clarity while respecting disciplinary differences. For faculty and administrators watching how peer institutions handle AI governance, UF's model offers a middle path: institutional consistency without sacrificing instructional judgment. The Center for Teaching Excellence's role in policy development also signals that support infrastructure matters as much as the policy itself. Educators building their own course-level AI policies can find structured guidance through resources like AI for Teachers Courses.
Your membership also unlocks:
