Academic Integrity Policy - Campus Updates for Faculty

Sent: August 27, 2026

From: Vincent J. Del Casino, Jr., Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs

Dear Colleagues,

As we have started the academic year 2026/27, I want to thank you for the care, thoughtfulness, and professional judgment you bring to your work with our students.  Academic integrity is central to our work at San José State. It helps ensure that students are evaluated fairly and that employers, graduate schools, and the public can have confidence that an SJSU degree represents genuine achievement.

Changes in teaching, learning, and technology—especially the rapid growth of generative artificial intelligence—continue to raise new questions for faculty and students. In addition to highlighting places where our academic integrity policy needed clearer expectations and more consistent procedures, they have also raised valid questions about the efficacy and limitations of AI detection technologies.  

The Academic Senate has approved a revised Academic Integrity Policy (S26-10) [pdf] that responds to these issues. I want to thank the faculty, staff, and administrators who contributed to this important work and highlight four changes of which faculty should be aware.

1. Reporting Academic Sanctions 

If you determine that an academic integrity violation occurred and impose an academic sanction, you must report the matter to Student Conduct and Ethical Development (SCED). Under the revised policy, an academic sanction may not be imposed without submitting an Academic Integrity Reporting Form. Consistent reporting allows the university to identify repeat violations, provide appropriate support and interventions, and respond to comparable cases more equitably across campus.

2. Timelines for Conferring with Students and Reporting Cases

S26-10 [pdf] outlines two important timelines. As a faculty member, you are expected to communicate and confer with the student within 10 working days of the observed, reported, or suspected incident—and no later than the release of the grade for the assessment. If you have determined that a violation occurred and contacted the student, you must submit a report to SCED. The report, including supporting documentation and communications with the student, must be submitted within 15 working days of the incident.

These timelines are intended to ensure that concerns are addressed promptly and that students and faculty are not left waiting unnecessarily.

3. Guidance on Generative AI & Detection Software

Faculty remain responsible for determining whether and how students may use AI tools in their courses. Make sure to communicate those expectations clearly in your syllabi and assignment instructions, including any requirements for acknowledging or citing the use of AI. To craft an AI policy for your course, you may want to use SJSU’s AI Policy Builder. 

S26-10 [pdf] recognizes both the usage and limitations of AI-detection tools. Faculty may only use detection services approved by the university. At SJSU, you have access to Turnitin. 

These detection tools and their findings must, however, be approached with great caution as they have become less effective over time and have the potential to generate greater false positives, meaning they can misclassify human-authored work as AI-generated or fail to identify AI-assisted writing. 

Under S26-10 [pdf], AI detection reports generated by tools such as Turnitin can therefore only be considered alongside other evidence. They cannot serve as the sole basis for imposing an academic sanction. Other evidence may include documentation that the submitted assignment represents a significant or noteworthy change from the student’s previous work or that the submitted assignment is not consistent with the materials taught in the class.

4. Greater Consistency in Academic Sanctions

S26-10 [pdf] also introduces a sanctioning matrix with recommended sanctions based on the nature and severity of a violation. 

The matrix is a guide, not a substitute for faculty judgment. It is intended to help us approach comparable cases more consistently while allowing consideration of the circumstances of each case.

5. Resources for Faculty

The Center for Faculty Excellence and Teaching Innovation (CFETI) can provide you with relevant  AI Pedagogical Resources. If you have any questions about these resources or need further guidance, please contact cfeti@sjsu.edu. The Center offers in-person and Zoom consultations for individual faculty members, programs, and departments. 

Through consultations, CFETI can also assist faculty who wish to better understand the effectiveness, limits, and drawbacks of tools such as Turnitin. Additionally, CFETI is hosting a workshop that introduces faculty to Turnitin Clarity–a tool that focuses on the student’s writing process, moving beyond the final product to reveal drafting history and guide responsible AI usage. This workshop is part of SJSU’s Turnitin Clarity Pilot Project. 

Additional resources and training on S26-10 and Academic Integrity, will become available in the coming weeks. In the meantime, please review the revised policy, update your course materials as needed, and contact SCED with questions about reporting or the new procedures.

Thank you for the care and judgment you bring to this work and for helping maintain a learning environment grounded in fairness, trust, and intellectual honesty.

With appreciation,

Vincent J. Del Casino, Jr.

Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs