Academic misconduct at Calgary: a policy written before ChatGPT, and what fills the gap

The short answer

The rulebook you are judged under at Calgary was written before ChatGPT existed, and it has never been revised — so it does not mention artificial intelligence at all. The Student Academic Misconduct Policy took effect on 1 July 2019 and its own header block records “Last Revision: N/A”.

That does not make AI use safe. It means the question is pushed entirely onto your instructor: §4.5 makes their stated expectations binding, and the “Unauthorized Assistance” definition is broad enough to catch help you were not permitted to have. So the thing to establish is not what the policy says about AI — it says nothing — but what your instructor said, in writing.

“Last Revision: N/A”

Calgary’s governing instrument is the Student Academic Misconduct Policy. Its header block, verbatim:

“Student Academic Misconduct Policy
Classification: Academic Operations
Approval Authority: General Faculties Council
Implementation Authority: Vice-Provost (Student Experience)
Effective Date: July 1, 2019
Last Revision: N/A”

The landing page records approval on 16 May 2019 and effect from 1 July 2019. Four things follow from that pair of dates, and they are worth holding separately.

First, the policy is the work of the General Faculties Council — a university-wide body, not a single faculty. It binds across the institution.

Second, it predates the public release of ChatGPT by more than three years. There has been no amendment since. The definitions section contains no reference to artificial intelligence, generative AI or ChatGPT anywhere, and no reference to Turnitin or text-matching either.

Third, the plagiarism definition it does contain is about attribution of someone else’s work, verbatim:

“n) “Plagiarism”occurs when a Student presents the ideas, expression of ideas or work of another individual as the Student’s own. Work may include algorithms, code, composition, data, methods, design, formulae, images, indigenous oral teachings, art and ceremonies, organization of ideas, and scientific and mathematical concepts.”

Its three named examples are using someone else’s work without acknowledgement (including “inappropriate paraphrasing”), purchasing or otherwise acquiring work and submitting it as your own, and resubmitting your own prior work without the second instructor’s express approval. Note that “another individual” runs through the definition. A language model is not straightforwardly an individual, which is exactly why the AI question is answered somewhere else.

Fourth: the footer of every page of the policy states that “The electronic version obtained from www.ucalgary.ca/policies is the official version of this document.” If anything ever turns on the exact wording, read that copy rather than any summary, including this one.

What catches AI use instead

Two provisions do the work the AI-free definition cannot. The first is a definition:

“u) “Unauthorized Assistance”means cooperating, collaborating, or otherwise giving or receiving assistance in completing Academic Activities without the Instructor’s [permission]”

“Otherwise giving or receiving assistance” is deliberately open. It does not need to name a tool to reach one.

The second is the clause that makes your instructor’s rules bind:

“4.5 Instructors will clearly communicate their expectations regarding conduct required of Students completing academic assessments in their courses. A Student’s failure to comply with those expectations will be investigated as potential Academic Misconduct.”

Read those two together and the practical position is clear. Calgary has not written a university-wide AI rule; it has delegated the whole question to the course. There is no prescribed disclosure form and no required wording anywhere in the policy — §4.5 is the entire mechanism.

So the single most useful thing you can do is get the answer in writing. Read the course outline. If it says nothing about generative AI, email and ask, and keep the reply with your drafts. Whether you had permission is the whole question under both provisions, and an email settles it.

If a permitted use needs to be acknowledged in the work itself, our guide to AI disclosure statements covers what a good acknowledgement contains — but follow whatever form your instructor asks for, since theirs is the expectation §4.5 makes binding.

One further definition is worth knowing because it catches something students do not always classify as misconduct. Calgary’s “Falsification” definition includes “manipulating, changing, or omitting source material, data, methods, or findings”, and separately covers “a Student impersonating another Student, or a Student allowing another individual to impersonate the Student”. The person who allows it is caught, not only the person who does it.

How far the sanctions reach

The published scale, verbatim from §4.7:

“4.7 Sanctions for Academic Misconduct may include one or more of the following:
a) required attendance at academic integrity seminars, submission of reflective essays, or similar educational requirements;
b) a written warning;
c) grade reductions;
d) failure of the relevant assignment or course;
e) denial of access to non-credit courses or programs of study at the University;
f) Disciplinary Probation;
g) Suspension;
h) Expulsion; or
i) revocation of a credential obtained as a result of Academic Misconduct.”

Probation, suspension and expulsion are not available against students in non-credit courses or programs; everything else is.

Sanction (i) is the one that reaches past graduation. Section 4.13 states it directly:

“4.13 The University may revoke any credential if, following an investigation, it determines that the recipient committed Academic Misconduct which would have prevented the credential being granted at the time it was. A permanent notation will appear on the Student’s Transcript reflecting the revocation of the credential as a result of Academic Misconduct.”

That is a real consequence and it is worth reading calmly rather than anxiously. It sits at the far end of a scale that begins with an integrity seminar, and §4.8 requires the choice between them to be reasoned:

“4.8 Determinations of the appropriate sanction for Academic Misconduct will consider the Student’s intention, any other instance of Academic Misconduct committed by the Student, the seniority of the Student, any relevant personal circumstances, and the gravity of the offence in the context of the course and the Student’s program of study.”

Intention is the first factor named. If you are ever in this position, that is the sentence to work with: what you can show about how the work was actually made bears directly on the sanction, not only on the finding.

Your record, your transcript, and the difference

Calgary draws a line here that a lot of students assume does not exist, and it is in your favour. Verbatim:

“4.9 All instances of Academic Misconduct will be tracked for administrative purposes. For Students in credit programs, an indicator will be noted on the Student Record. This indicator is not a disciplinary sanction. It does not appear on the Student’s Transcript, and has no impact on the Student’s ability to continue in their course or program of study.”

Then the exceptions, in order of severity:

“4.10 Disciplinary Probation and Suspension will appear on a Student’s Transcript for the duration of the sanction.”

“4.12 Expulsion and Revocation appear permanentlyon the Student’s Transcript.”

So: an internal indicator that does not surface to anyone reading your transcript; probation and suspension that surface only while they last; expulsion and revocation that are permanent. Section 4.11 adds that during a suspension you remain enrolled and may register for courses beginning after the suspension period, though a Dean may impose requirements to be completed before you resume.

Process, fairness and appeal

The decision-maker is the Dean of the Teaching Faculty. For graduate students, §2.2 requires the Dean of the Faculty of Graduate Studies to be consulted first — which matters if you are working on a thesis.

The fairness guarantee is short and, unusually, defined:

“4.6 Investigations into allegations of Academic Misconduct will respect the Student’s right to Procedural Fairness.”

“o) “Procedural Fairness” means the opportunity to be heard by an unbiased decision maker and to be made aware of the evidence considered by the decision maker. Procedural Fairness is about the procedures used to make a decision, not the actual outcome of the decision.”

The second half of that definition is the one to hold on to. You are entitled to know what the decision-maker looked at. If an allegation is driven by a detector output, that entitlement is how you find out what the output actually was and how it was read — and what a similarity or AI score actually means is a good deal narrower than it sounds. If you are facing an allegation now, our guide on what to do when you are accused walks through the first week.

If a detector score is what started this, our guide to an AI detector flagging your thesis sets out what that number does and does not establish on its own.

Appeals run under a separate policy:

“4.14 Students who have been found responsible for committing Academic Misconduct may appeal the decision in accordance with the Student Misconduct and Academic Appeals Policy. Students may also appeal sanctions imposed in response to Academic Misconduct… however, sanctions requiring attendance at educational seminars and sanctions that are simply written warnings may only be appealed if the Student is also appealing the decision that they committed Academic Misconduct.”

In plain terms: you can appeal the finding, and you can appeal the sanction — but a seminar or a written warning on its own is only appealable if you are contesting the finding as well.

There is also a duty to take part:

“4.3 Students are expected to cooperate in investigations of allegations of Academic Misconduct. Obstructing an investigation may result in penalties under the Student Non-Academic Misconduct Policy.”

Cooperating and defending yourself are not in tension. Answer the process; bring your drafts. See how to prove you wrote it yourself.

The Taylor Institute and “postplagiarism”

Calgary’s teaching centre, the Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning, publishes AI Teaching and Learning Supports: GenAI teaching support, assessment design and workshops. What it does not publish is any statement about AI detection tools, Turnitin AI detection or D2L settings. We looked; there is nothing there.

The framing is deliberate rather than accidental. The Institute’s own news item is titled “Moving Academic Integrity from Compliance to Culture: Practical Tips for Teaching in a Postplagiarism Era” — Calgary is where that framing comes from, and it is a move away from detection as the organising idea, toward assessment design and disclosure.

For you as a student, that is a mixed signal and it is worth reading honestly. It suggests the institutional conversation is not primarily about catching people with software. It does not tell you that no instructor in any faculty runs a detector, because Calgary publishes no statement either way. Calgary’s learning management system is D2L Brightspace; whether any AI-writing indicator is enabled in it is not published.

Separately, the Student Success Centre offers a free self-guided D2L course on academic integrity, described in its own words as a way to “improve your understanding of academic integrity and learn how to avoid plagiarism, unauthorized assistance and more during your studies”. That is training, not a self-check.

What Calgary does not publish

These are absences, stated as absences rather than guessed at. Each is something we looked for in Calgary’s own primary sources and did not find.

• Any named text-matching or similarity product. No product is named in the policy or on the academic-integrity pages reviewed. The URL we probed for a Turnitin service page returned 404.
• Whether an AI-writing indicator is switched on anywhere. Calgary publishes no position, in the policy or at the Taylor Institute.
• Any opt-out, alternative-submission route, or data-residency statement. Nothing is published about declining third-party detection or about where submitted work is stored. Alberta institutions operate under the provincial FOIP Act, but we located no FOIP notice specific to detection.
• Any student self-check route. Not documented.
• The standard of proof. The policy does not state one. What it guarantees instead is Procedural Fairness, defined above.
• Any case counts. Calgary publishes no annual figures we could locate.

The honest summary is that Calgary has told its students less about detection than most institutions of its size, and what it has told them dates from 2019. That cuts both ways: there is no published detector regime to fear, and no published limit on one either.

Before you submit

• Get the AI rule from your instructor in writing. The policy delegates the whole question to them under §4.5, so their email is the rule.
• Read the course outline before you start, not after. “Unauthorized Assistance” turns on permission you did not have at the time.
• Graduate students: expect the Graduate Studies Dean. Under §2.2 that Dean is consulted first in your case.
• Keep drafts and dated version history. Section 4.8 makes intention the first factor in choosing a sanction, and your working record is what speaks to it.
• If you are asked about your work, ask what evidence was considered. Procedural Fairness is defined to include being made aware of it.

If you want a read on your own text before you hand it in, our AI checkis free up to 1,500 words, with no account and no name. We hold ourselves to the standard we would apply to anyone else’s tool: our published error rates are measured on English and German corpora, and no detector — ours included — produces proof. See how accurate AI detectors really are.

Sources

• University of Calgary: Student Academic Misconduct Policy — Approval Authority: General Faculties Council; approved 16 May 2019; effective 1 July 2019; Last Revision: N/A. Sections 3, 4.3, 4.5–4.14.
• University of Calgary: Student Academic Misconduct Policy — landing page — records the approval and effective dates and the companion documents.
• Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning: AI Teaching and Learning Supports — GenAI teaching support; no statement on detection tools.
• University of Calgary: Moving Academic Integrity from Compliance to Culture: Practical Tips for Teaching in a Postplagiarism Era — Taylor Institute news item.
• University of Calgary Student Success Centre: Academic integrity — the self-guided D2L course.

This page is orientation, not legal advice. What binds you is your course outline and the Student Academic Misconduct Policy, together with the Student Academic Misconduct Procedure and the Student Misconduct and Academic Appeals Policy that it names.