UAF has no unified AI policy
By Tane Timling
The University of Alaska Fairbanks is still developing an Artificial Intelligence policy. Guidance on AI has been shaped by individual departments and instructors.
Image credit: Pexels
Faculty have faced questions about how to address the technology in their disciplines while the university continues to work through broader questions of attribution, authorship and academic integrity. In fall 2023, Associate Professor of Rural Development Jennifer Carroll was president of the Faculty Senate when faculty began asking how to approach AI in a university setting.
“There was nothing they could draw from,” Carroll said. “We're kind of heading towards acknowledging that this is disciplinary-based, that your program or your group of programs needs to sit down and say, what does this do in our discipline?”
The Faculty Senate began examining foundational questions, including how to define AI, attribute AI-generated information and determine authorship when AI tools are used. That work involved coordination with the University of Alaska Board of Regents.
Carroll continued to work on the AI policy as the faculty alliance chair from 2024 through 2025 and remains an alliance member. According to Carroll, major challenges to implementing an AI policy include funding and tailoring the policy to different applications.
Implementing faculty training takes resources that aren't currently accounted for. Collins suggests addressing this by applying for grants such as the National Science Foundation TechAccess: AI-Ready America and AI-Infrastructure Hubs, which could provide UAF with funds to implement solutions for how to use AI at the university. Funding could address “a lack of faculty and program development support,” according to Carroll.
AI uses vary widely across academic fields. “A real challenge for AI policy is we cannot just make blanket policies,” Carroll said. Because the technology changes so quickly, the policy must remain useful as AI tools evolve.
Carroll explained that the policy would need to define what AI is as a technology, what is meant to be an author of original information and how to correctly attribute information provided by AI technologies such as large language models.
Genova Brookes Boyde, an academic librarian and associate professor of library science, said people across campus are “doing innovative things with AI,” but gathering these uses and creating a “central form of communication” has been challenging. Boyde is part of a cohort at UAF working with Ithaka S+R, a non-profit organization focused on education research and evaluation, to build understanding around using AI systems in academics.
UAF's Center for Teaching and Learning (CTL) offers recommendations for using AI in teaching and coursework, but it does not establish official university policy. Its guidance suggests students may use AI for tasks such as brainstorming, polishing language and analyzing data, while emphasizing that AI can produce incorrect information or “hallucinate” false results.
CTL also encourages instructors to evaluate whether AI supports their course learning objectives and to communicate expectations clearly to students. Its recommendations include revising syllabi, rethinking assignment designs and summarizing lesson material.
CTL describes its recommendations as a way to “inspire conversation and spark debate about how we all might use generative AI to facilitate learning.” The center also encourages faculty to participate in workshops to discuss AI use in education.
One of the main concerns in AI policy development is academic integrity. UAF’s academic misconduct policy outlines behaviors that may constitute misconduct, including unauthorized use of tools or sources, submitting work completed by someone else, dishonesty to obtain academic benefits and violations of a program's ethical guidelines or professional standards.
UAF acknowledges in the student misconduct policy that “the reliability of AI detection tools is undetermined” and software-based AI detection will not be the primary means of investigating academic misconduct. The policy states that investigators may consider other evidence, including previous writing samples, unexplained advanced techniques, prior work and admissions of AI use. The Office of Rights, Compliance and Accountability (ORCA) handles these investigations.
Debates over AI have also surfaced at the departmental level. Last year, a graduate student art show at the University Art Gallery experienced conflict around AI. One student displayed a project using AI-generated imagery, and a protesting student began pulling the work off the wall and eating it. The UAF Department of Art released a statement addressing AI use in the department and the gallery. Addressing the core issues of using AI in art, part of the statement said, “We share the concern that has been voiced about the extractive and exploitative nature of AI and make a distinction between images that use AI as a shortcut to outsource creative thought and effort and the fine art field of New Media Art where artists are actively interrogating the systems and motives behind AI.” The statement also stresses that the University Art Gallery is an "experimental space” and that students “engaging in the process in good faith” deserve protection, not censorship.
The Sun Star is conducting a poll to learn how UAF students use AI in their classes. Students are encouraged to participate in this anonymous poll.