Plagiarism and AI at York: the 2024 policy that names AI, and your 10 days to respond

The short answer

York’s rules changed on 1 September 2024, and the new policy names artificial intelligence inside the offence list — so anything you find quoting the old Policy on Academic Honesty is out of date. The current instrument is the Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures, approved by Senate on 27 June 2024 and last revised on 24 April 2025.

Two deadlines run fast if an allegation opens: your enrolment in the course is blocked immediately, and you have 10 business days to respond once you are notified. Both are worth knowing before you need them.

The policy changed on 1 September 2024

This is the first thing to get right, because searching for “York academic honesty” will still put the superseded document in front of you. York has been honest about it: the old PDF now opens with its own retirement notice.

“Academic Honesty, Senate Policy on (Effective September 1, 2024 - Superseded by Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures)”

That policy was approved by Senate on 28 April 2005, effective September 2005, and amended in 2008 and 2011. It governed York for nearly twenty years. It no longer governs you.

The current instrument, with its own dates:

• Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures
• Approval Authority: Senate
• Approval Date: 27 June 2024
• Effective Date: 1 September 2024
• Last Revised: 24 April 2025
• Posted to the Secretariat site 14 August 2024; a French version is published

The policy also sets its own renewal clock: “This policy will be reviewed every five years or at such shorter interval as Senate deems necessary” — so the next scheduled review is 2029. Practically, that means the text you read today is likely to be the text that applies for the rest of your degree, which is a reason to read it once, properly.

AI in the offence list itself

Most universities reach AI indirectly, through an older phrase like “unauthorized aid”. York does not. Section 5.2.a defines cheating as “the attempt to gain an unfair advantage in an academic evaluation”, and the very first form listed is this:

“i. Using an undocumented or unreferenced content generator, including the use of text-, image-, code-, or video-generating artificial intelligence (AI);”

Read that clause slowly, because its structure is in your favour and most summaries lose it. The offence is using an undocumented or unreferenced generator. It is the failure to document, not the use of AI as such, that the clause names. Where AI use is permitted and you have documented it, § 5.2.a.i does not describe what you did.

The second clause is where permission comes in:

“ii. Obtaining assistance by means of documentary, artificial intelligence technology, electronic or other aids that are restricted by the instructor (see Section 6.2.c);”

So the operative test under § 5.2.a.ii is your instructor’s restriction. Between the two clauses you have the whole shape of the rule: document what you used, and stay inside what your course allows.

There is also a carve-out that non-native English writers should know about. The collaboration offence, § 5.2.a.x, is submitting work prepared with a third party where that was not authorised —

“and goes beyond correction of grammar, idiom, punctuation, spelling and sentence mechanics;”

Correcting your grammar and punctuation is expressly outside that offence. Substantial editorial or compositional help is not: § 5.2.a.xii names “Representing another’s substantial editorial or compositional assistance on an assignment as the student’s own work”, and cross-refers to the two AI clauses. The line York draws is between fixing your sentences and writing them.

That line matters more than usual at York, because the university’s student-facing guidance defines “AI use” unusually broadly:

“AI use means using an AI-based tool to help with any part of your academic work. … This includes using AI to generate, revise, translate, summarize, analyze, code, create, or otherwise contribute to work for a course, assignment, test, exam, project, lab, presentation, discussion post, or other academic activity.”

Translation is in that list, and so is improving clarity if English is not your first language. York’s instruction in both cases is to ask first. If you write in a second language, that is a real constraint and it is worth raising with your instructor in week one rather than discovering it later — our page on AI detectors and non-native speakers explains why second-language writing draws attention it does not deserve.

Plagiarism has its own definition at § 5.2.b — “the appropriation of the work of another whether published, unpublished or posted electronically, attributed or anonymous, without proper acknowledgement” — and its list includes paraphrasing without citation, presenting another’s structure and organisation as your own, and, at § 5.2.b.iv, “Reproducing without citation the student’s own work originally presented elsewhere”. Reusing your own earlier essay is plagiarism at York unless you cite it.

The standard of proof went down

This is the change students are least likely to hear about, and the one most worth understanding.

The superseded policy opened with a presumption and a high bar:

“A student who is charged with a breach of academic honesty shall be presumed innocent until, based upon clear and compelling evidence, a committee determines the student has violated the academic honesty standards of the university.”

The 2024 policy states a different standard, twice. Section 5.4.b:

“Findings of academic misconduct are made according to a balance of probabilities and not bound by formal rules of evidence applicable in courts of law.”

And again at § 8.4.f:

“Once the investigation is complete, the PPR or PPR Designate will determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether a breach occurred.”

Balance of probabilities means more likely than not. “Clear and compelling evidence” asked for more than that. York replaced the second with the first, and the replacement is the single most consequential difference between the old policy and the new one for a student on the receiving end of an allegation.

What follows from it practically: the case against you does not have to be overwhelming to succeed, so the account you give matters proportionately more. Contemporaneous evidence — drafts with version history, notes, reading, search history, the messy middle of your own process — is what shifts a more-likely-than-not judgement. Gather it before you need it; how to prove you wrote it yourself is a checklist for exactly this.

One protection did survive intact. Section 5.5.c: “If, at any time in the investigation or process, it is determined that misconduct did not occur, the allegation will be dismissed and all records of the allegation destroyed.” A dismissed allegation leaves nothing behind.

What your instructor owes you, and what you owe them

York writes the AI question as a pair of matched duties, which is a fairer structure than most and gives you something to point at if your syllabus is vague.

Your duty, § 6.2.c — students must:

“follow their instructors’ expectations for using text-, image-, code-, or video-generating artificial intelligence (AI); referencing sources; group work and collaboration, and be proactive in pursuit of clarification and resources to support these expectations;”

Their duty, § 6.3.b and § 6.3.d — instructors must:

“communicate with and support students in following instructors’ expectations for using text-, image-, code-, or video-generating AI; referencing sources; conducting group work and collaboration;”

“include a statement on academic integrity on course syllabi. Menu of possible statements will be made available on the Academic Integrity page on the Vice-Provost Academic website.”

Those statements exist, grouped into general, GenAI-specific and offence-specific versions. The page carries no date. If your syllabus has no integrity statement at all, that is a gap in a published instructor obligation, and asking about it is a normal thing to do.

The default where nobody has said anything is prohibition, and York states it in the student’s own words:

“If the instructions are unclear, seem to conflict, or do not mention AI, ask your instructor or TA before using it. Do not assume AI use is allowed because it is not mentioned.”

Acknowledging, citing, documenting

York is unusually precise about what “disclosure” actually means, and the distinction is worth learning because instructors use these words as if they were interchangeable and York does not.

“Acknowledging AI use means stating whether and how you used an AI tool. Citing AI use means formally referencing the tool according to a citation style or instructor requirement. Documenting AI use means keeping records of your process, such as prompts, outputs, drafts, notes, and revisions.”

And the menu of what you may be asked for:

“If AI use is permitted for your course or assignment, follow your instructor’s directions for acknowledging, citing, or documenting that use. Requirements may vary by course or assessment. Your instructor may ask you to do one or more of the following: cite the AI tool using a required citation style; include a short acknowledgement explaining how you used AI; complete an AI use declaration; submit prompts, outputs, drafts, or revision notes; explain how you reviewed, revised, or verified AI-generated content.”

Followed by a warning that catches people out:

“Do not assume that citation alone is enough.”

The practical reading: keep the documentation even when nobody asks for it. Prompts, outputs and drafts cost nothing to save, and they are the only thing that turns “I did the work” into something a reader can check. Our guide to AI disclosure statements covers what a good acknowledgement contains, and if a tool gave you references, verify every citation before it reaches your bibliography — a fabricated source is a problem entirely separate from the AI question.

Turnitin, and what York says about detectors

York’s text-matching tool is Turnitin, run inside eClass, and the university describes it as support rather than verdict:

“Using text-matching tools such as Turnitin for written work. Instructors are responsible for reviewing and interpreting similarity reports and determining whether concerns warrant further review. Depending on the settings enabled, students may also be able to review their report before final submission.”

That last sentence is your self-check route at York: per-assignment, at the instructor’s discretion. There is no standing student-facing service, so if you want a report before you submit, you have to ask whether the setting is on.

York also publishes a caution to its own staff about the whole category:

“Tools and technical data can support academic integrity, but they do not replace instructor judgment. Similarity reports, quiz settings, and activity logs should be reviewed in context […] Instructors should also consider privacy, accessibility, and fairness when using measures such as text-matching tools, activity logs, or oral follow-up assessments.”

The Policy contemplates this evidence but does not privilege it: the investigator may assess, among other things, “reviewing evidence produced by plagiarism or cheating detection software” (§ 8.4.e.iii). It is one input into an investigation, listed alongside others.

On AI detectors specifically, York’s Office of the Vice-Provost Academic publishes a position. The page it sits on carries no publication or revision date, which is worth stating whenever you quote it:

“While numerous AI detection tools are available, York does not currently recommend their use. These tools struggle to keep pace with the rapid evolution of AI and can be unreliable, producing both false positives and false negatives. This may unfairly impact students or create a false sense of certainty about AI use. Their use may also raise concerns related to privacy, data security, and intellectual property, as many tools require uploading student work to external systems.”

The instruction to staff who suspect AI use is a four-line list:

“Do not rely on AI detection tools as evidence.Review the work in relation to course expectations and, where appropriate, the student’s previous work. Seek clarification from the student where appropriate. Follow the process outlined in the Senate Academic Conduct Policy and Procedure if concerns remain.”

And the sentence to hold on to if you are ever in that conversation:

“However, these indicators are not definitive evidence of AI use. It is not always possible to determine whether AI tools have been used, and conclusions should not be based on suspicion alone.”

The student-facing twin — also undated — puts the same point to you: “Do not rely on AI-detection tools or percentage scores that claim to show whether writing was AI-generated. These tools can be unreliable and should not replace following your instructor’s directions, being transparent when required, and keeping records of your work.”

That advice covers our tool too, and we mean it. Our published error rates are measured on English and German corpora, and no detector — ours included — produces proof. How accurate AI detectors actually are is our own attempt at that question, with the measurements attached.

One thing York does notpublish: whether the Turnitin AI indicator is technically switched on or off in its eClass integration. It publishes a recommendation, not a configuration. Anybody who tells you York’s setting is filling in a blank the university left empty. If it matters for your assignment, ask your instructor what they can actually see.

On privacy, we could not establish a Turnitin opt-out or alternative-submission right at York, and no statement about where submissions are stored — Canadian or American servers — appears on the Secretariat, Vice-Provost Academic or Teaching Commons pages examined. That is an absence of published guidance, not a published refusal. What York does publish is a warning about what you put into AI tools: “Entering personal, sensitive, unpublished, or third-party information into an AI tool can create privacy or confidentiality concerns. Uploading course materials, readings, images, data, or other content without permission may also raise copyright or intellectual property concerns.” For an unpublished thesis chapter, that is real advice.

When one finding covers ten students

York has a mechanism the other Canadian policies in this series do not, and if you are in a large course you should know it exists.

“High Volume Academic Misconduct: means allegations of academic misconduct involving 10 or more students within one course where the breach is of the same nature and results in consistent outcomes.”

Section 8.5 sets out how it works:

“a. The PPR or PPR Designate will investigate at least five of the alleged breaches of misconduct using the procedures set out in section 8.4.

b. If the PPR or PPR Designate concludes on a balance of probabilities after a minimum of five investigations, that academic misconduct of the same nature occurred in the majority of the cases, the decision may be applied to the other students implicated in the investigation.”

In other words, a finding can be extended to students whose own work was never individually investigated. There is a way out, and it has a deadline: “Upon receipt of the decision, the student may request, within 10 business days, that their case be reviewed individually”.

If you ever receive a decision that reads like it was written about a cohort rather than about your paper, that request is the thing to make, in writing, immediately. Ten business days is not long, and the review is opt-in — nobody will start it for you.

Sanctions, and how long the record lasts

Section 5.6.a lists what may follow a finding, and the ladder is long: written warnings or reprimands; educational development, such as a workshop or an academic honesty assignment, with higher sanctions if it is not completed; resubmission of the work, with or without a grade sanction; a make-up assignment; a lowered or zero grade on the assignment; a lowered grade in the course; failure in the course with a permanent grade of record; a permanent grade of record that stays even if you repeat the course; research-based sanctions including referral to the Office of Research Ethics; suspension; expulsion; withholding or rescission of a degree, diploma or certificate; rescission of admission; and transcript notation.

Suspension is capped at two years — “a definite period ranging from one term to up to six consecutive terms (two years)”.

Transcript notation, § 5.6.a.xiv, has its own rule:

“transcript notation, which may be permanent or for a specified period of time and may be combined with any sanction, but will always be included with suspensions, expulsions and the withholding or rescission of a degree, diploma, certificate or other credential;”

The heavier sanctions are also reserved: suspension, expulsion and degree rescission “may only be imposed by a Faculty Appeals Committee”, and expulsions must be reported to the Senate Appeals Committee.

York is the most specific institution in this series about how long a record lasts, and the split falls in a place worth memorising. Section 5.5.b:

“i. sanctions noted in 5.6(a)(i) to (v) inclusive, will remain on the student record for five years or until the student graduates, whichever is less; and

ii. sanctions noted in 5.6(a)(vi) to (xv) inclusive, will remain on the internal record permanently.”

Items (i) to (v) are the lighter end — warnings, educational development, resubmission, a make-up assignment, and a grade sanction on the assignment itself. Item (vi) is a lowered grade in the course. That is where the line sits: at the point a penalty moves from the assignment to the course, the internal record becomes permanent. It is a detail worth raising if a proposed penalty is hovering near it.

Removal is possible but slow, under § 5.7.c–d:

“When no period is specified for a transcript notation, a student may petition to the relevant Faculty Appeals Committee to have the notation removed after a period of five years from the date at which the notation was entered; a transcript notation of expulsion from the University and withholding or rescinding a degree, diploma, certificate is not appealable.”

“A student may submit a petition to the relevant Faculty Appeals Committee for the destruction of permanent records of offences. Such a petition will not be considered until at least five years after the decision was taken. If the petition is granted, however, the record shall not be destroyed before the student is eligible to graduate.”

York also publishes the exact wording that goes on a transcript, at § 8.6.b, which is unusual and useful — it means you can see in advance what a future employer or graduate school would read:

“For the withholding or recission of a degree: ‘York degree withheld/rescinded by the University on (date of decision).’

For suspension from the University: ‘Suspended by the University for academic misconduct for ___ months effective (date suspension starts).’

For limitations on students’ registration: ‘Registration limited by the University for (dates of the terms for which limits were applied).’

For removal from the student’s program of study: ‘Removed from program of study by the University for academic misconduct for ___ months effective (date suspension starts).’”

(“recission” is the spelling in the original.) There is a fifth string in § 8.6.b for expulsion; the copy we read was truncated mid-sentence, so we are not quoting it. Read that clause in the policy itself if it is relevant to you.

The investigation, the enrolment block, the appeal

Your instructor does not decide the case. The decision-maker is the Person of Primary Responsibility, a Faculty-level office:

“Person of Primary Responsibility (PPR): refers to the person or panel, identified by the Dean’s Office in each Faculty, who will coordinate the implementation of this Policy in their Faculty or unit. The PPR will normally be an Associate Dean who is knowledgeable about Academic Conduct matters. The Faculty PPR is responsible for coordinating the activities of PPR Designates, ensuring the consistent implementation of the Policy and reporting annually to Senate, as required.”

The first thing that happens is administrative and immediate. Under § 8.4.b.i the university may:

“post a block on enrolment activity in the course, effectively barring the student from dropping the course, withdrawing from the University or obtaining transcripts. A request by a student for a transcript to be sent to another institution or to a potential employer will be processed but, if the student is found to have performed academic misconduct, the recipients of the transcript will be provided automatically with an updated transcript;”

Dropping the course is not an exit. And note the second half: a transcript already sent to an employer or another university can be followed by a corrected one. If you are applying anywhere while an allegation is open, that is a fact to plan around rather than hope past.

Notice must come within five business days of the block, and you have 10 business days to respond, extendable. Ask for the extension if you need it — in writing, before the deadline, not after.

The entitlements during the process are listed at § 8.1:

“a. the student will first be informed by the PPR or PPR Designate of the allegations against them and then will normally have access to any available evidence against them; b. the student will be informed of their right to have a Support Person throughout the process; c. the student will be provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations and evidence against them; d. while admissibility is not governed by the formal rules of evidence, appropriate weight will be given to evidence based on its credibility or reliability; and e. the student will have the right to request leave to appeal a decision.”

The Support Person can be more than moral support:

“Support Person: refers to a person who may provide support and advice to a student involved in an academic misconduct process, and who may speak on behalf of the student. The support person may be internal or external to the University and may include legal counsel, a peer or family member.”

Use it. A person who can speak for you changes a meeting where you are outnumbered and frightened into something manageable.

The appeal route runs from the PPR or Designate to a Faculty Appeals Committee — minimum three members, at least one student, majority faculty — and then to the Senate Appeals Committee. Where the PPR thinks a case warrants suspension, expulsion or degree rescission, it goes to the Faculty Appeals Committee in the first instance, since only that committee can impose them. Where a Faculty rescinds a degree or applies another penalty “that may be considered negatively transformational”, the decision and its supporting documentation must go to the Senate Appeals Committee for approval on behalf of Senate.

Finally, on records: disclosure of anything about your academic conduct is routed through Ontario privacy law under § 5.5.e — “a request for disclosure of any information about academic conduct will be considered in the first instance by the Office of the University Registrar, the University’s sole central repository for its records concerning students.” One office, one route.

The Policy requires PPRs to report annually to Senate. We did not retrieve those reports, so this page quotes no case counts for York, and you should treat any figure you see elsewhere as needing the Senate docket behind it.

Before you submit

• Check you are reading the 2024 policy. The Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures, effective 1 September 2024, revised 24 April 2025 — not the superseded Policy on Academic Honesty.
• Find the integrity statement on your syllabus. Including one is a published instructor duty under § 6.3.d; if it is missing, ask.
• If AI is not mentioned, ask before you use it. York says plainly: do not assume it is allowed because it is not mentioned — and that includes translation.
• Keep prompts, outputs, drafts and revision notes. York calls this “documenting”, and it is the evidence a balance-of-probabilities decision turns on.
• Ask whether your Turnitin report is visible to you. It depends on the settings your instructor enabled.
• If you are caught in a group allegation, request an individual review within 10 business days. Under § 8.5 a finding from five investigations can otherwise be applied to you.

If you want a private read on your own writing before you hand it in, our AI check is free up to 1,500 words, with no account and no name. Our published error rates are measured on English and German corpora, and no detector — ours included — produces proof. Treat it the way York tells you to treat any such tool: as information, never as a verdict.

Sources

• York University Secretariat: Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures — Approval Authority: Senate; approved 27 June 2024; effective 1 September 2024; last revised 24 April 2025.
• York University Secretariat: Academic Honesty, Senate Policy on — superseded. Approved by Senate 28 April 2005; amended 2008 and 2011. Cited here only for the earlier standard of proof.
• Office of the Vice-Provost Academic: AI Technology & Academic Integrity (instructor guidance) — no publication or revision date on the page.
• Office of the Vice-Provost Academic: AI Technology & Academic Integrity (student guidance) — no date on the page.
• Office of the Vice-Provost Academic: Academic Integrity in the Learning Environment — the Turnitin description. No date on the page.
• Office of the Vice-Provost Academic: Syllabus statements — general, GenAI-specific and offence-specific. No date on the page.

This page is orientation, not legal advice. What binds you is York’s Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures, together with your course syllabus and your instructor’s stated expectations. Where York publishes no rule — on opting out of Turnitin, on where submissions are stored, or on whether the Turnitin AI indicator is enabled — this page says so rather than filling the gap.