³ÉÈËAVÊÓƵ

Here's how AI could potentially contribute to disruptive behavior, based on the existing categories in the document: 

• Misinformation and False Information: AI could be used to generate convincing false information. This could include creating fake news articles, fabricating evidence, or generating deepfake videos, all of which could disrupt university processes and potentially cause harm. The document identifies "providing false information to University officials" as disruptive behavior. 

• Interference with Teaching and Academic Freedom: AI could be used to disrupt teaching by generating fabricated content that could be falsely presented as scholarly work or to create AI tools that allow students to undermine the academic process. The document identifies "intentional interference with teaching, academic freedom, or freedom of speech" as disruptive behavior. 

• Unauthorized Use of University Property: AI could potentially be used to access or manipulate University systems without authorization. This could range from accessing student records to disrupting network systems. The document lists "unauthorized use" of university property as a form of disruptive behavior. 

• Threats and Harassment: AI could be used to generate threatening or harassing messages, including those targeted at individuals within the University community. While the document does not directly mention harassment as a form of disruptive behavior, it does include "violence or threat of violence to self or others". 

• Disruption of University Functions: AI tools could be used to automate actions that disrupt the normal functions of the University. For example, an AI might flood a website with requests, overload an email server, or disable security systems. The document includes "unauthorized interference with or impeding the rights of others to enter, use, or leave any University facility, service, or scheduled activity" as disruptive. 

It's important to note that the document also emphasizes the protection of legal rights and freedoms, including academic freedom and freedom of expression. The University is committed to providing a learning environment that is free from disruptive behavior, but the regulation is not intended to abridge academic freedom or to interfere with freedom of expression. Therefore, the implementation of any policies related to AI-driven disruptive behavior would have to be carefully considered to not infringe on these rights. 

The provided Statement of Ethical Conduct from the ³ÉÈËAVÊÓƵ (³ÉÈËAVÊÓƵ) does not explicitly mention Artificial Intelligence (AI). However, several aspects of the statement could be relevant to the ethical considerations of using AI within the university setting. Here's a breakdown of the potentially relevant areas: 

• Integrity of University Business: The policy mandates protecting the integrity of all university business and avoiding conflicts of interest. This could extend to the use of AI in ways that might compromise the integrity of data, research, or other operations. For instance, the use of AI in grading or admissions could pose such a risk if the AI system is biased or not transparent. 

• Ethical Standards and Professional Practices: The document states that ³ÉÈËAVÊÓƵ employees, students, volunteers, and others should adhere to policies that promote the highest standards of ethics, integrity, and professional practices in their educational, research, and community outreach activities. The use of AI would need to be evaluated in this context. For example, the use of AI to generate research material might conflict with expectations of academic integrity, especially if the AI is not properly cited and acknowledged. 

• Non-Discrimination: ³ÉÈËAVÊÓƵ policies support the rights of all citizens regardless of various personal characteristics. If AI systems are employed, they must be free of bias, ensuring that they do not discriminate against individuals based on protected characteristics, such as race, sex, or disability. 

• Confidentiality and Security: The policy also requires maintaining the confidentiality and security of information entrusted to the university. This is relevant as AI systems might involve the use of personal data or sensitive information, which would require careful handling and protection. 

• Proper Use of Resources: The document says that university resources, time, and effort should not be used for personal gain. This is relevant to AI use if an AI system or output is used in a way that benefits an individual rather than the university. The policy also mandates protecting university assets and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse. The introduction of AI systems would require consideration of the financial resources expended on it, as well as the possibility of AI outputs, programs, or systems being used fraudulently or improperly. 

• Public's Business and Transparency: The policy includes adhering to the spirit of Florida's Public Records laws. The use of AI, especially in areas like decision-making or data analysis, would need to be sufficiently transparent and auditable to adhere to public records laws. 

• Reporting Misconduct: The statement calls for reporting dishonesty, fraud, misconduct, violations, or neglect of duty. If AI is used in a way that violates these ethical principles, mechanisms to report and address such violations would need to be in place. 

• Climate of Care and Civility: The statement includes a goal of nurturing a climate of care and civility. The application of AI in the university should support this goal, rather than hinder it. This could include ensuring that AI does not create a hostile or biased environment. 

The sources provided outline the ³ÉÈËAVÊÓƵ's Student Code of Conduct, which includes various policies, procedures, and definitions related to student behavior. While the document does not explicitly mention Artificial Intelligence (AI), there are several areas where AI could be incorporated or considered within the existing framework: 

• Misuse of Technology: The code prohibits "theft or other misuse of computer resources". This section could be expanded to include specific prohibitions related to the misuse of AI tools, such as using AI to generate work for academic credit that is not the student's own. 

• Unauthorized Collaboration: This section addresses working with others on coursework without faculty permission. It specifically includes "providing or obtaining unauthorized assistance on graded coursework, including assistance from artificial intelligence". 

• Plagiarism: The code defines plagiarism as "taking credit for any work created by another person". This definition could be interpreted to include the use of AI-generated content without proper attribution, but it could be made more explicit in relation to AI. 

• Misuse of Materials: The code prohibits posting, purchasing, obtaining, sharing or copying course materials without the permission of the faculty. This could be expanded to address the posting of AI generated content as course materials or sharing of instructor created course materials with an AI tool without permission. 

• Academic Integrity: The document outlines specific procedures for addressing academic misconduct, including Academic Expectations Meetings, Academic Integrity Mediation, and Academic Pre-Disciplinary Hearing Reviews. These processes could be adapted to address cases involving the misuse of AI tools, and consider "academic standards and specific program and/or professional regulations, policies, and expectations". 

• Definitions: The "Definitions" section could be updated to include definitions of AI and AI-related terms, as well as to incorporate definitions of AI-specific concepts as they relate to academic integrity. 

• Student Rights: The section on student rights indicates the right to present information and evidence. It also notes that previous disciplinary history may be considered during sanctioning phase. A student should be able to present evidence in an AI misconduct case, including their history with technology and AI tools. 

• Sanctions: The code outlines a range of sanctions, from reprimands to expulsion. These sanctions could be applied to cases involving AI misconduct. The code specifies that a student may forfeit academic credit. This sanction should also apply in cases of AI misconduct. 

Key Considerations: 

• Clarity and Specificity: The code should be updated with specific language regarding AI to avoid ambiguity and provide clear guidelines for students. 

• Educational Approach: As stated, the student conduct program is committed to "an educational and developmental process". When violations occur, an approach should be taken to develop the student's decision-making skills in regard to AI tools. 

• Adaptability: Given that AI technology is rapidly evolving, the code should be reviewed periodically and updated as needed to remain relevant and effective. 

• Professional Standards: The code notes that it extends to "professional standards of conduct or ethics to which students must adhere as part of their studies". The use of AI tools could be incorporated into the professional standards expectations. 

In summary, while the current Student Code of Conduct provides a foundation for addressing academic integrity and technology misuse, updates are needed to explicitly address the use of AI. These updates should include clear definitions, specific prohibitions, and adaptable procedures to ensure that the code remains relevant in the context of emerging technologies.