Acceptable Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Policy Statement

This policy established guidelines for the ethical and responsible use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) by students, faculty, and staff, grounded in Calvin University’s commitment to Reformed Christian scholarship, teaching, learning, and the cultural mandate to develop creation responsibly. The purpose of this policy is to ensure the use of AI tools, including, generative AI, in a manner that fosters academic integrity, stewardship of God-given talents, respect for intellectual property, privacy, human dignity, and compliance with legal obligations. This policy applies to all faculty, staff, and students and applies to AI use in administration, academic work, teaching, research, the creative arts, and professional practice.

Theological Framework

A Reformed Christian worldview recognizes AI as part of the latent potential in creation for which we are grateful. As a part of creation, we are called to direct AI in responsible and God-honoring ways (Gen 1:28). However, the unfolding of AI is also intertwined with the effects of sin and the Fall (Rom. 8:22). Examples include the rise of misinformation and disinformation, harnessing AI in the service of power and greed, a disregard for stewarding the environment, disregard for cultural contexts, displacement of human relationships, and misuse of intellectual property. The embrace of AI can also accompany certain worldview presuppositions such as an idolatrous trust in technology to solve all problems (technicism), looking to the collection of information as the key to flourishing (informationism), a reductionistic view of creation as nothing but data (dataism), and many other ideologies. In all areas of learning and culture, we are called to test everything and hold fast to what is good (1 Thess. 5:21). Likewise, with AI we must discern the good creational possibilities from the many sinful distortions.

In the sphere of higher education, this involves discerning the calling of learners and how we can responsibly steward AI to assist in those callings. This is particularly important since AI, like all technology, is not neutral in its design and in its formative power. Key normative principles will include directing AI towards justice (Micah 6:8), emphasizing how humans are uniquely created in the image of God as distinct from machines, the importance of promoting truth, stewarding time and resources, and answering God’s call to love our neighbor and to care for the earth and its creatures.

Finally, recognizing that AI is neither the villain nor the savior, we look forward to a day when Christ will return to make all things new. Until then, a posture of humility, wisdom, and courage will be required as we navigate the complexities of discerning normative approaches to AI that bring shalom nearer. As a Christian academic institution, we seek to do this in a way that furthers our mission to shape students as agents of renewal and to disseminate scholarly insights that service the church and the world more broadly.

AI Strategy and Position

As a Reformed Christian institution of higher learning, Calvin University's AI strategy and direction must first and foremost support — and must not displace — the formational kinds of teaching, learning, and scholarship described in Calvin's Expanded Statement of Mission.

As an institution that prepares students to make a living, make an impact, and make meaning and find purpose in their world and work, we aim to provide students with AI-related learning experiences that prepare them for the marketplace, prepare them to use AI in ways that are consistent with their callings as Christ’s agents of renewal in the world, and prepare them for a lifetime of discernment regarding the effects of technology on their formation as whole people and disciples of Christ. Given AI’s distinct combination of ubiquity, general application, power, and potential to support or stunt human flourishing, Calvin commits to providing all students with learning experiences about AI, with AI, and without AI.

Beyond the aims of teaching and learning, earnest engagement with AI carries implications for faithful and stewardly operations. Through AI implementation, we will seek greater effectiveness and resource efficiency in our work, while minding AI impacts on human community and environment.

Policies

The policies below apply to Calvin University faculty, staff, and students.

General Usage

Purpose

This section established the foundation guidelines for how all members of the Calvin University community are expected to engage with AI tools. These provisions apply across all contexts of university life and provide the baseline from which course-specific, research-specific, and administrative AI use policies are derived.

Good stewardship requires institutional accountability. This policy therefore distinguishes between tools Calvin can be institutionally accountable for and those it cannot, reflecting a difference in support and accountability rather than a judgment about the tool capability.

AI Tool Classification

AI tools are categorized as follows:

Tier 1 – Institutionally supported Tools

Tier 1 tools are those for which Calvin has established enterprise agreements providing data protection, IT support, and institutional accountability. Institutionally supported tools are those designated by Calvin IT as meeting the requirements for Tier 1 classification. All other tools fall under Tier 2 or Tier 3 classification.

These enterprise agreements provide Calvin users with protections not available through personal or free-tier accounts, including:

• Contractual privacy, security, and confidentiality protections, accessed through Calvin credentials
• Prohibition on use of submitted content for model training

These protections are the basis for institutional designation as supported platforms. Although Calvin IT administers access to these services, it does not access or review users’ prompts, conversations, or uploaded content. 

Tier 2 – Unsupported but Permissible Tools

Tier 2 tools are AI tools used outside of Calvin’s institutional agreements. These tools may be used for personal or professional purposes, provided these tools do not process, access, transmit, or receive institutionally sensitive information. Calvin IT does not provide support, data protection guarantees, or institutional accountability for these tools. Users are encouraged to consult Calvin IT before adopting a Tier 2 AI tool for university-related work to ensure the tool aligns with Calvin’s security, privacy, and data protection requirements. 

Tier 3 – Prohibited Uses or Tools

Tier 3 applies to any AI tool or use that meets one or more of the following conditions:

• It has been explicitly blocked or restricted by Calvin IT
• It requires submission of sensitive information or institutional data without enterprise-level data protections
• It is accessed in an unauthorized manner, including pirated software or shared credentials
• It bypasses or circumvents institutional security or data protection controls
• It is identified by Calvin IT as presenting unacceptable legal, regulatory, privacy, security, or contractual risk.

Calvin IT maintains a list of restricted tools and serves as the final authority for Tier 3 classification when ambiguity exists, in consultation with academic leadership to ensure that restrictions are applied in ways that respect academic freedom and scholarly inquiry.

AI Tool Access

AI tools are classified based on the environment in which they are accessed because data protection, oversight, and contractual obligations differ across platforms. The same AI model may carry different policy implications depending on how and where it is used:

• Tools accessed through Tier 1 platforms are institutionally supported
• The same tools accessed through personal or free-tier accounts are Tier 2
• Any use meeting Tier 3 criteria is prohibited regardless of environment

Many software platforms including productivity, communication, note-taking, transcription, and grammar tools, now incorporate AI features. These AI-enabled tools are subject to the same data sensitivity expectations as generative AI tools when they process, transmit, or store institutional or regulated data. When evaluating any tool, users should focus on the type of data being entered rather than whether the tool is labeled as AI, AI-enabled, or non-AI.

Faculty engaged in research involving sensitive data may consult Calvin IT regarding the use of locally running AI models that process data entirely on-device without external data transmissions.

Exposure of Sensitive Information

Faculty, staff, and students may not submit sensitive information to Tier 2 tools. Use of sensitive information with Tier 1 tools may be permitted when appropriate safeguards and regulatory requirements are satisfied.

Policy obligations follow the data, not the device. While account type determines tier classification, users should first evaluate the sensitivity of the information they are handling before selecting an AI tool.

The following categories illustrate what is considered sensitive information under this policy. This list is not exhaustive but provides guidance for common scenarios.

• Personally Identifiable Information (PII): Names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, Social Security numbers, and other unique identifiers.
• Trade Secrets and Intellectual Property: Proprietary information, research data, and unpublished works
• Sensitive University Documents and Contracts: Internal reports, strategic plans, legal agreements, and financial records
• Faculty and Staff Evaluations: Performance reviews, disciplinary records, and other personnel-related documents
• Creative Artifacts: Original works of art, literature, music, other creative outputs, unless consent is given
• Academic records: Grades, transcripts, and other student-related information
• Internal Communications: Emails, memos, and other forms of internal correspondence containing sensitive information

Calvin's Tier 1 tools are designed to support compliant use of sensitive information in common faculty workflows. For example, uploading student work for AI-assisted feedback is generally permissible within Tier 1 platforms, as these tools include FERPA-compliant data protections. However, some uses — such as uploading regulated research data or substantial portions of copyrighted materials — may require additional consideration. If in doubt, consult Calvin IT, who can provide guidance specific to your use case.

AI Use in Institutional Decision-Making

AI systems must not be used to autonomously generate or execute decisions that affect student or employee outcomes. All AI-generated recommendations must be reviewed, validated, and approved by an appropriately designated Calvin employee prior to implementation. Students or employees whose evaluations are assisted by AI tools must be allowed to review and contest any AI outputs concerning them. Processes should be designed so that individuals can speak for themselves rather than being viewed through the lens of AI-generated summaries.

AI-generated content may be used to support analysis, drafting, summarization, ideation, and other assistive tasks; however, AI outputs should be treated as incomplete, fallible, and advisory inputs rather than authoritative determinations.

Final responsibility and accountability for all institutional decisions rests with appropriately designated Calvin personnel, not with AI systems.

Faculty, staff, and students should exercise caution with AI tools including computer-use, browser-use, or autonomous agent applications which can act on a user’s behalf with limited oversight. Use of such tools in contexts where university data may be accessible to an agent requires explicit consultation with Calvin IT prior to deployment.

Copyright Concerns, Ownership, and Authorship

Faculty, staff, and students must not use generative AI to produce works that are substantially similar to, directly derived from, or that reproduce identifiable elements of copyrighted materials including music, images, artwork, and written content, without authorization from the rights holder

AI-generated content raises questions about ownership and authorship. Under current law, AI systems cannot hold copyrights; any rights that exist belong to the human contributor whose creative input shaped the work. When AI is used collaboratively in creative course work, faculty, staff, and students should maintain clear documentation of the original contributions.

These questions carry weight beyond the legal. Authorship implies agency, intentionality, and responsibility, values central to Calvin’s mission. Members of this community are encouraged to reflect on what it means to be a creator, and how AI shapes that role.

AI Use in Administrative and Operational Work

Employees may use AI as a tool to perform, scale, and optimize tasks in the normal course of their work if it is judged to be good stewardship of time and resources. This includes the ethical use of AI to enhance productivity, improve decision making, and support innovation.

However, over-reliance on AI at the expense of creativity, critical thinking, or quality work is discouraged. Employees should never use AI for deceptive practices or for purposes that violate university policy or professional ethics.

If AI use involves sharing institutional data with or making decisions that affect parties outside the university, the appropriate data owners, data governance committees legal counsel/risk management should be consulted to ensure compliance.

AI Use in Academic Work

Reformed Perspective on Learning

From a Reformed perspective, education is not merely about acquiring information but about formation —developing wisdom, discernment, and the capacity to think God’s thoughts after Him. AI tools should enhance rather than replace the formative process of learning.

Student Use of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Work

Used well, AI can support learning. Used poorly, it can disrupt or displace the learning process, misrepresent a student’s abilities, undermine academic integrity, or provide a false sense of mastery.

Students are responsible for using AI in ways that are consistent with Calvin’s Educational Framework, the Calvin’s Student Conduct Code, and course learning objectives and policies.

Course and Assignment Rules

Students may use AI-generated or AI-assisted content in academic work only to the extent permitted by the course instructor, the course syllabus, assignment instructions, or other written course guidance.

Students are responsible for reading and following the AI instructions for each course and assignment. AI expectations may vary across courses, assignments, and instructors. Because supporting student learning looks different across disciplines and course types, AI expectations may vary across courses, assignments, and instructors.

If course or assignment instructions do not address a particular AI use, students must ask the instructor for permission before using AI.

Students must disclose AI use in assignments following the format for disclosure required by the instructor unless the instructor states it is not required.

Student Responsibility for Submitted Work

Students are responsible for the accuracy, quality, honesty, originality, and appropriateness of everything they submit, including work prepared with AI assistance.

Students may not submit work that was created or improved by AI if the assignment does not explicitly allow it or if they were required to disclose it but did not.

Academic Integrity

Students are expected to follow existing Calvin University policies on academic integrity. Failure to follow course and assignment policies on AI may constitute academic dishonesty. Since technology develops faster than policy, there may be situations that are not expressly prohibited by policy but nonetheless raise integrity concerns.

Augmentation technologies such as smart glasses, smartwatches, and hearing aids require extra caution. Students are expected to disclose any augmentation technologies promptly and fully and should expect to be asked to remove them in secured settings unless prior authorization is provided by Disability Services. Failure to disclose or remove may lead to academic sanctions even if the technologies were used honestly. Students must recognize that other students may have different approved accommodations and must not assume that they are permitted to use an augmentation technology just because another student is permitted to use it.

Privacy, Data Protection, and Approved Tools

Students are sometimes granted access to non-public information, including unpublished instructional materials, other students' work, and confidential research data. AI tools present substantial risks when working with such information, even opening a document in an environment where an AI tool has access may cause that information to be shared with the application provider.

The following precautions apply:

• Only Tier 1 tools should be used in environments containing non-public information. When in doubt, ask your instructor.
• Treat providing a non-approved tool access to non-public information as equivalent to posting it publicly.
• Even within Tier 1 tools, apply “need-to-know” practices when allowing AI access to non-public information.

Common examples of violations include:

• Pasting assignment text into a Tier 2 tool (e.g., ChatGPT) unless the instructor has explicitly permitted it or the material is publicly posted
• Uploading a peer’s work to a Tier 2 tool
• Allowing a Tier 2 browser extension access to a tab logged into Moodle

Accessibility and Accommodations

Some students may find AI tools helpful for accessing instructional materials or completing academic work. However, the need for access does not automatically override institutional, course, or assignment-specific policies. Students should work with Disability Services to select appropriate tools and obtain permission to use them through the existing accommodations process.

AI Use by Faculty

Faculty should use discernment and transparency when integrating AI into or excluding it from their courses, assessments, and research projects. Faculty are encouraged to develop approaches to AI that support the university’s educational mission and are consistent with disciplinary and accreditation standards, course and program learning objectives, and university policy.

Required Course Communication

Faculty must provide an AI statement in each syllabus that explains the framework for acceptable AI use in the course, including student and instructor uses, and how it supports the course’s overall learning goals. Instructors should clearly communicate AI use disclosure requirements of the course or assignments, which may include the AI tools used and a description of what the tool did and how it contributed to the work. Where AI expectations vary by assignment, faculty should provide instructions on the assignment.

Assessment, Awarding Grades, and Human Judgment

Faculty are responsible not only for teaching students, but for certifying that students learned. Course assessments and AI policies should therefore be fair, enforceable, clearly communicated, and designed to provide assurance that students are meeting course learning objectives.

Faculty should continually review their assessment designs in light of expanding AI availability and capabilities. Wherever independent demonstration of learning is desired, faculty should implement structural approaches to AI-aware assessment, ensuring that the conditions, process, or mode of assessment provide evidence of student knowledge or skills.

Faculty should avoid relying primarily on discursive approaches, such as prohibitions of AI use outside of class or student disclosure. Faculty should also avoid assessment designs that depend on human or computational detection of AI use (see AI Detection and Evidence of Misconduct, below).

In awarding grades, human judgment and feedback remain essential to the liberal arts educational mission of Calvin. All grading decisions and feedback must involve substantive human involvement, judgment, and review of student work. Faculty may use AI to support assessment work only in accordance with university policy, student privacy requirements, and accreditation standards and must disclose these uses to students in the syllabus and assessment documentation. Acceptable forms of AI support include drafting assessment plans, rubrics, or feedback and identifying patterns in anonymized student work. AI may not assign grades, provide final feedback, or serve as the source for academic decision. If automated tools are used in the process of assigning a grade, students must be allowed to view and contest the tool output.

Faculty Responsibility for AI-Assisted Instructional Materials

Faculty may use AI tools to assist with developing courses and instructional materials but may not rely on it exclusively to generate these without substantive human review and contribution. Faculty are responsible for the accuracy, quality, privacy compliance, and copyright implications of all AI-assisted course material. Whenever AI-assisted materials are used in a course in ways that substantively shape instruction or assessment, faculty must communicate that use to students.

Privacy and Data Protection

In addition to the general data protection requirements outlined above, faculty must not enter sensitive, confidential, protected, or personally identifiable information into AI tools that are external to Calvin or are not approved by Calvin IT. This includes, but is not limited to, identifiable student work, grades, accommodation information, advising records and conduct records, personnel information, confidential institutional information, unpublished research data, clinical or client information, digital access tokens, and other data protected by law, university policy, contract, or professional obligation. 

Academic Integrity and Student Misuse  

Faculty may specify expectations for AI use at the course-specific or assignment-specific level, including whether and how students must disclose their use of AI. Misrepresentation of AI-generated or AI-assisted work as one’s own original work, use of AI in violation of course or assignment instructions, or failure to provide required disclosure may be treated as a violation of Calvin’s Academic Integrity Policy.  

Because use of AI tools should support, rather than replace, students’ development of understanding, skill, judgment, and voice, faculty should distinguish what they consider to be uses of AI that impede learning from appropriate formative uses of AI, which may include brainstorming, concept review, feedback on drafts, accessibility support, guided exploration, or study support, when permitted by the course- or assignment-specific expectations.  

AI Detection and Evidence of Misconduct  

Faculty should not make judgments about student misconduct based on guesses about AI use. Faculty may not use AI detection tools as they are imperfect and may lead to erroneous conclusions. Students must have an opportunity to respond to concerns about suspected AI misuse, and faculty must follow existing academic integrity processes.  

Accessibility, Equity, and Fairness  

Because AI policies should not create unnecessary barriers to learning or participation, faculty should consider how their AI policies and practices affect students with disabilities, international students, students from underrepresented backgrounds, and students with unequal access to technology.  

Reasonable exceptions or accommodations involving AI may be permitted for students with accommodations that are documented by Disability Services and are consistent with essential course learning outcomes, academic integrity, and university policies.  

Research and Publication  

Faculty using AI in research, publication, grant work, data analysis, or scholarly communications remain subject to all applicable professional, disciplinary, publisher, grantor, and regulatory requirements, including Institutional Review Board requirements. AI use must be disclosed when required by publication venues, funders, collaborators, or university policy. Calvin's AI policy does not supersede these external obligations.

Consequences of Non-compliance

Violations of this policy may result in disciplinary action, including academic sanctions for students and professional sanctions for faculty and staff, defined in HR policies and Faculty Handbook. Legal consequences may also apply if the use of AI tools results in copyright infringement, privacy breaches, or other legal violations.  

More importantly, violations represent a failure of stewardship and integrity that contradicts our community's shared values and commitments. 

Definitions

Artificial Intelligence (AI): The simulation of human intelligence processes by machines, including learning, reasoning, and self-correction.  

Generative AI (GAI): A subset of AI capable of producing text, images, audio, video, and other media formats, including tools like OpenAI's ChatGPT, Claude, DALL·E, Gemini, Adobe Firefly, and Microsoft CoPilot.  

Commercial AI Products: AI tools developed by for-profit companies, such as OpenAI's ChatGPT, Anthropic's Claude, Microsoft Copilot, Grammarly, Workday, Salesforce and others.  

References

1. FERPA, HIPAA
2. Engaging God’s World: A Christian Vision of Faith, Learning, and Living by Cornelius Platinga Jr.
3. Our World Belongs to God: A Contemporary Testimony. Christian Reformed Church (1987). CRC Publications
4. Calvin University Mission, Expanded Mission and Vision Statement