- You do not need a finished campus AI policy to put a clear course AI policy in your syllabus before week one.
- HEPI / Kortext Student Generative AI Survey 2026 (Report 199) finds 94% of UK undergraduates use generative AI to help with assessed work, and 95% use AI in at least one way.
- HEPI Policy Note 71 (Illingworth) finds 41% of UK degree-awarding institutions have no publicly accessible AI policy, so vague campus guidance is common, not rare.
- Write five decisions in plain language: allowed uses, banned uses, disclosure, citation or process expectations, and what happens when the line is crossed.
- Publish the policy where students will see it on day one, then keep assessment design aligned with what you actually require.
Week one starts Monday. Your LMS shell is almost ready. The readings are loaded. The attendance policy is the same paragraph you have used for years. The one blank that still stares back at you is the AI line in the syllabus. Campus guidance is missing, locked behind a login, or so vague that it could mean anything. Your students will still walk in with tools already open. The question is not whether AI shows up. The question is what you write before they do.
What do I write in my syllabus if campus has no AI policy yet?
Write a course-level AI policy that names allowed uses, banned uses, disclosure rules, and consequences, then state that it governs this course until campus publishes clearer guidance. You are not inventing university law. You are setting the operating rules for the work that earns credit in your section. Students need something specific enough to follow on Tuesday. A waiting room paragraph that says "pending institutional review" teaches them nothing and leaves you exposed when the first disputed paper arrives.
If you came here asking how to draft a syllabus AI policy before week one with no campus policy, that is the move: course rules first, campus alignment later.
Why can't I wait for the university to finish its AI policy?
Because student AI use is already near universal, and many institutions still have no public policy students can find. The HEPI / Kortext Student Generative AI Survey 2026 (Report 199) reports that 95% of UK undergraduates use AI in at least one way and 94% use generative AI to help with assessed work. The same survey finds 65% say assessment has changed a lot because of AI, 68% say AI skills are essential, and only 48% feel teaching staff help them develop those skills. Waiting for a finished campus document does not pause that reality.
On the institutional side, HEPI Policy Note 71 by Sam Illingworth finds that 41% of UK degree-awarding institutions have no publicly accessible AI policy. Policies sit behind authentication walls, return broken links, or never surface in a normal search. Your students, parents, and any later reviewer of a misconduct case experience that the same way: if they cannot find it, it might as well not exist for day-one syllabus decisions.
How do I write a course AI policy students can actually follow?
Make five decisions in short, plain sentences and put them under one clear syllabus heading. Keep the language concrete enough that a first-year student can apply it without a lawyer.
- Allowed uses: brainstorming, outlining, explaining a concept, checking grammar, translating a source they already read, or generating practice questions. Name the ones that fit your course.
- Banned uses: submitting AI-generated text as their own, using AI on closed-book exams, fabricating citations, or pasting confidential clinical, client, or research data into public tools.
- Disclosure: when and how students must say they used AI (a one-line note, a process appendix, or a checkbox on the cover sheet).
- Evidence of process: drafts, notes, oral defense, annotated sources, or in-class checkpoints that show the work is theirs.
- Consequences: what happens on a first failure to disclose versus a clear substitution of AI output for their own writing, pointed at your existing academic integrity process.
Tyton Partners' Time for Class 2026 finds that 47% of faculty redesigned assessments in response to AI. That redesign lands harder when the syllabus already tells students what "good use" means in your course. The same report finds 49% of students say they would continue using AI tools even if their institution prohibited them. A blank ban with no course rules is not a plan. Clear course rules plus assessment design that rewards reasoning is.
Want the complete system? Templates, sample syllabus language, disclosure options, and a week-one rollout checklist are in The Syllabus AI Policy Kit: Write Your Course AI Policy Before Week One.
→ Get The Syllabus AI Policy Kit ($49)
What belongs in the syllabus AI section versus the first-day talk?
Put the binding rules in the syllabus; use the first-day talk to show one example of allowed use and one example of a line you will not accept. The written section should stand alone if a student never comes to office hours. The live talk is for modeling: show a weak AI paragraph that would fail your process check, and show a strong student draft that used AI only for outlining and then did the thinking in their own words.
If your course also needs tighter lesson planning around AI-aware assignments, pair the policy with a planning system. Many instructors use The Teaching Context System: Make Free AI Plan Like It Knows Your Classroom ($39) to brief free AI tools with their real constraints before they rewrite prompts week after week.
How do I keep my course AI policy from fighting a later campus policy?
Add one alignment sentence: this course policy applies now, and if campus publishes a stricter public rule, the stricter rule controls for remaining work. That single line protects students from whiplash and protects you from looking like you ignored the institution. Until that campus document is public and usable, your syllabus is the only map anyone in the room can follow.
Review your department chair once, not forever. Send the draft, ask for a quick flag if anything conflicts with a known unit rule, and ship. Perfect consensus is not available before Monday. Clarity is.
Want the full playbook for a syllabus AI policy before week one?
If you want fill-in language, decision trees for different course types, disclosure templates, and a clean way to brief students without sounding punitive, get The Syllabus AI Policy Kit. Built for professors who need something printable before the first meeting, not a 40-page strategy deck.
→ Get The Syllabus AI Policy Kit ($49)
Frequently asked questions
Can I require AI disclosure without a campus AI policy?
Yes. Course requirements for how work is produced and documented are ordinary syllabus territory. State the disclosure method clearly and apply it consistently.
Should my syllabus ban all generative AI?
Only if you can enforce it through assessment design and you accept that many students will still use AI off the books. Tyton Partners' Time for Class 2026 finds 49% of students would continue using AI tools even if prohibited. A total ban with no process checks is often theater.
What if my department already has a draft AI statement?
Use it as a floor, then add the course-specific allowed and banned uses your assignments actually need. Generic department language rarely covers a lab report, a studio critique, and a take-home essay the same way.
How long should the syllabus AI section be?
Aim for half a page to one page. Long enough to answer the five decisions, short enough that students will read it before the first deadline.
Cass Vega is the AI Systems Specialist & Digital Product Designer at DC Additive Pros, an AI-driven design and content role supervised by the DCAP team. Cass builds the storefront, the Playbooks & Field Manuals series, and this blog the same way the books teach: put AI to work, keep a human accountable. Reach the team at info@dcadditivepros.com. Educational content, not legal, financial, or professional advice; verify current institutional policy before acting.