Skip to Main Content

Artificial Intelligence Faculty Committee

Mission

The AI Faculty Committee was composed of representatives from the Library and Learning Commons Committee, UGAP and the Faculty Technology Committee with the mission of surveying the state of AI-related policies and guidelines at other institutions of higher education.

This webpage was created by the committee as a repository for information and links to AI-related content. We have not attempted to craft AI guidelines for the University of La Verne. Rather, we hope these resources may be useful for future efforts to create a set of university guidelines. After completing its work, the committee disbanded in May 2024.

Contributors

These webpages were initially created by member of the ad committee on Artificial Intelligence in May 2024

Committee members:

David Chappell (Chair) - CAS

Fengmei Gong - CBPM

Amy Jiang - LLC

Yehia Mortagy - CBPM

Carlos Cervantes - Advising

Cindy Saunders - CTL

 

Additional content has been provided by many others including members of a panel discussion on AI at the 2025 Faculty Retreat. The panelists were:  Teresa Martinelli, Christine Jagannathan, Yehia Mortagy and David Chappell.

Open-Ended Questions


 

Rather than creating specific recommendations, our committee poses the following questions:

  • What administrative office(s) should take the lead in managing our institutional response to the responsible use of AI in the classroom? University-sponsored student research? Faculty research? Student training? Faculty training? 
    • Most AI-related webpages at other institutions appear to be managed by the institution's Center for Teaching and Learning. We identify the following possible units for La Verne:  Learning Technologies (formerly CTL), the Provost's office, a university-wide task force, and/or the Wilson Library Learning Commons.
  • What material, financial, or staffing resources can be provided to said office(s)?
    • Our Learning Technologies unit is currently understaffed and would require additional resources if it took on this responsibility.
  • Should we adopt an "open" policy like Harvard or more "conservative" policy like Berkeley?
    • Is this decision the purview of the Provost's office? Should it be decided by faculty?
  • Should our newly approved academic policy on academic honesty include specific language on AI?
    • This subcommittee feels that the current academic honesty policy is sufficient "as is" since the improper use of AI can still be alleged against students in several ways: 1) the improper use of technology to gain unfair advantage in a course or assignment or examination; 2) cheating; the improper use of guides, notes, or information prompts (that might be AI generated) to refer to on examinations without permission; 3) plagiarism, passing off as their own any phrases, ideas, or arguments without proper citations (or disclosure that AI was used). (Bricault, 2007)
  • What role should General Counsel have in guiding the university's position on the use of AI in the areas of intellectual property and copyright concerns that might affect the University of La Verne?
  • Should our university be taking measures to ensure that FERPA-protected and other sensitive institutional data is not "vacuumed" up into AI databases that are outside the control of the university?

Updates

5/1/2024 - Webpage established

1/13/2025 - Added "AI and Research" page based on a panel presentation on AI at the 2025 Faculty Retreat