Academic Integrity

Academic Integrity

As a Christian community of faith and scholarship, Brewton-Parker Christian University is committed to the principles of truth and honesty in the academic endeavor (2 Timothy 3:16). Faculty and students in this community are called to present academic work as an honest reflection of their own abilities; we must not misrepresent others’ work as our own (Mark 10:17-22).

Academic dishonesty is treated with serious consequences for two fundamental reasons: it is stealing-taking something that is not ours-and it is lying-pretending to be something it is not. Such actions harm both the individual and the community. Cheating has no place at a campus where all labors are informed by faith, because God desires us to be truthful with one another concerning our academic abilities. Only with a truthful presentation of our knowledge can there be an honest evaluation of our abilities. Our policy maintains zero tolerance for intentional dishonesty while providing educational correction for honest mistakes and progressive discipline for repeat or severe offenses.

What is Academic Dishonesty?

Academic dishonesty is any unauthorized action or attempted action that results, or could result, in academic gain. Unintentional violations are still violations and will be treated as such. Brewton-Parker Christian University categorizes academic dishonesty as follows:

Plagiarism - Using someone else’s ideas or words without proper acknowledgment, creating the false impression that you created them.

• Copying another person’s words, theories, data, etc., without quotation and/or proper acknowledgment.

• Inserting a few original words while still essentially copying another’s work.
• Paraphrasing another’s work without crediting the source.
• Fabricating, inventing, or counterfeiting sources.
• Submitting someone else’s work as your own, regardless of how it was obtained.
• Omitting quotation marks on otherwise acknowledged material.
• Using citations in the paper but not in the reference list, or vice versa.

Self-Plagiarism - Submitting for credit an assignment previously submitted for credit without permission.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Using the same paper, project, or assignment for more than one class.
• Submitting work from a previous semester when retaking a class.
• Copying data or results from a previous study without repeating the work.

Lack of Original Ideas - Submitting work that contains no meaningful personal analysis, synthesis, evaluation, or unique perspective-even if all sources are properly cited. Academic work must reflect both research and the student’s own intellectual contribution.

• Assignments consisting entirely of quoted or paraphrased material with no original commentary.
• Work that follows the structure or argument of source material so closely that it lacks independent interpretation.
• Papers that simply summarize sources without presenting a distinct argument or creative solution.

Inappropriate Assistance - Giving or receiving unauthorized assistance in connection with academic work. Unless otherwise stated, students should assume assistance is unauthorized.

• Obtaining or sharing information during an exam, quiz, lab, or other assignment.
• Allowing another student to copy your work.
• Sharing exam or quiz questions.
• Possessing or accessing unauthorized electronic devices during an exam or assignment.
• Giving or receiving answers to an assignment scheduled for another time.
• Completing work for another student or allowing someone else to complete your work.
• Submitting group work prepared by fewer than all members of the group.
• Using non-scholarly sources when instructed to use only scholarly sources.

Lying / Falsification - Providing false information or altering academic records.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Giving false reasons for missing assignments or class.
• Falsifying lab results or data.
• Altering work after submission.
• Altering grades or attendance records.
• Signing someone else in as present when absent.
• Taking a test for another student.
• Submitting work under a false name.
• Omitting or falsifying information during an appeal.

Complicity - Knowingly encouraging, inducing, facilitating, or assisting another to commit an academic integrity violation.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Failing to report knowledge of another student’s violation.
• Soliciting or encouraging a violation.
• Planning a violation with others, regardless of whether it occurs.

Artificial Intelligence Misuse - Using AI in a manner inconsistent with the Policy Regarding AI Usage at BPCU is an academic integrity violation.

Examples include, but are not limited to:

• Using AI tools to generate substantive academic content without authorization.
• Submitting AI-generated work as your own.
• Failing to acknowledge approved AI use as directed by the instructor.
   

Integrity Compromise or Policy Defiance

• Violating explicit instructor or institutional rules established to protect the integrity of academic assessments, even without proven intent to cheat.
  Examples include, but are not limited to, possession of unauthorized devices, ignoring proctoring instructions, or engaging in prohibited behaviors during assessments.

Final Notes

• Students are encouraged to seek clarification from instructors if unsure whether a specific action is permitted.

Introduction

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is a rapidly developing technology with seemingly limitless potential. Multiple AI tools are presently available, with many more developments occurring daily. However, like most tools, this advancement can be used constructively or destructively in relation to our pursuit of knowledge and advanced education.

According to Proverbs 11:3, “The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity.” Therefore, to ensure that AI is used ethically and responsibly, Brewton-Parker Christian University has adopted the following guidelines governing the use of AI in academic settings.

AI in Instruction

Brewton-Parker Christian University recognizes the potential benefits of AI as a teaching and learning tool. Faculty are encouraged to incorporate AI purposefully into classroom instruction, discussions, and assignments where appropriate, to help students understand both the capabilities and limitations of such tools. In these cases, instructors will clearly communicate expectations for AI use, including how students should document or acknowledge any AI-assisted work.

Policy

• AI Prohibition Without Approval
  The use of AI is prohibited on assignments, exams, quizzes, lab work, and similar academic activities unless the instructor has explicitly approved AI for that specific assignment. This includes using AI to generate text, translate languages, write code, answer questions, or perform other functions in place of a student’s original work.
• AI as a Non-Credible Source
  Since credible research relies on verifiable citations, and we are presently unable to adequately fact-check the sources of AI-generated content, AI will not be accepted as a credible source in academic work. However, instructors may permit the use of AI tools as sources within specific assignments. In such cases, the AI tool must be properly acknowledged in accordance with the instructor’s guidelines.
• Required Technology Use
  All instructors affiliated with Brewton-Parker Christian University are required to utilize the university’s designated Learning Management System (LMS) and approved AI detection tool(s) for assignment submission and evaluation. Instructors may also require a hard copy submission, but the student must still submit the work through the LMS.
• Assignment Submission and AI Screening
  Students must submit relevant assignments through the LMS. Upon submission, the work will be checked for AI-generated content using the university’s approved detection tool(s).
• AI Detection Thresholds and Review ProcessIf a student’s work returns an AI detection score meeting or exceeding the threshold outlined in the Artificial Intelligence Sanction Table, the instructor may initiate an academic integrity review. This determination will be based on results from the university’s approved AI detection tool(s).
  AI detection scores are a tool, not definitive proof of misconduct. Instructors must review flagged content, compare it to the student’s prior work, speak with the student, and complete an oral competency check before filing a violation. Students are responsible for proving originality by providing drafts, notes, outlines, revision history, and ensuring subject knowledge.
• Consequences for Violations
  Students who violate this policy will be subject to disciplinary action as prescribed in the Academic Integrity Policy and the sanction table.

Additional Notes of Emphasis:

• Policy Revisions
  Since AI is a continually evolving tool, this policy is subject to review and revision at any time. It should not be considered final, as future developments in AI-especially those intended to circumvent academic integrity-are unknown at the time of publication. Brewton-Parker Christian University reserves the right to modify the policy without prior notice based on new evidence.
• Scope of the Policy
  This policy is intended to address AI primarily designed for generating substantive academic content (such as ChatGPT). It does not currently apply to AI-assisted language correction tools (such as Grammarly and Microsoft Editor) or citation generation tools (such as MyBib and Landmark Citation Machine). However, students should exercise caution when using these tools, as they can produce inaccurate information and may evolve to include generative capabilities in the future.
• Implementing Competency Checks
  To support authentic learning and academic growth, faculty may conduct competency checks related to submitted coursework. Competency checks are a normal academic practice and do not automatically indicate suspicion of misconduct. In many cases, they are used to deepen understanding, encourage critical thinking, and strengthen engagement between students and faculty. Competency checks may also be used to verify understanding and authorship.
• Clarifying the Use of Grammarly and other AI-assisted language correction tools 
  Students may use Grammarly or similar tools for grammar and mechanical corrections only. Grammarly’s clarity, rewriting, or generative features are not permitted unless specifically approved by the instructor.

Differentiating Citation Mistakes from Academic Misconduct

Citation Mistakes (Correctable - Not Misconduct): Errors in citation format where sources are acknowledged but improperly formatted.

Sanctions:

100 level - up to 10 percent deduction

200 level - up to 20 percent deduction

300 level - required on substantial written assessments; up to 30 percent deduction

400 level - required on substantial written assessments; up to 40 percent deduction

500+ level - required on substantial written assessments; up to 50 percent deduction

*Instructors may require resubmission of work or professional tutoring

Academic Misconduct (Always Sanctionable): Passing off another’s work as one’s own, using Artificial Intelligence without approval, cheating on exams or assignments, falsifying records or data, or knowingly helping others commit violations.

Defining Violation Levels and Sanctions

Sanction levels/points are cumulative over the length of the student’s tenure at Brewton-Parker Christian University.

The following violation levels are assigned to specific types of violations of the Brewton-Parker Christian University Academic Integrity Policy. If a violation occurs that is not specifically provided for below, then any sanction(s) will be based on the most similar type of violation that exists in this rubric. All violations may be considered a single violation regardless of the timeframe in which they occur. If a student commits more than one type of violation in a single act, his/her sanction will be based on the highest violation level applicable.

For offenses not specifically mentioned in this rubric, faculty members may confer with the Provost and propose a description of the offense and the level of sanctions. The Provost will review the proposed offense and sanction for consistency with existing offenses and sanctions. If a faculty member and the Provost disagree over a particular offense or sanction, the Provost will make the determination with advice and counsel from the Appeals Committee. In the event of a conflict between a course syllabus and the Academic Integrity Policy, the policy and rubric shall take precedence.

In addition, upon proof by clear and convincing evidence of complicity and pursuant to notice and fair opportunity for a hearing before the Appeals Committee, offenders not enrolled at the time of the offense, either at the university or in the class where the offense was committed, may be subject to revocation of academic credit, grades, and degrees or other credentials already conferred.

Traditional Academic Integrity Violation Levels:

Artificial Intelligence Violation Levels

False Positive Safeguards for AI Detection Turnitin
AI scores along with other AI detectors are a tool, not necessarily definitive proof of misconduct. Instructors must review flagged content and compare it to the student’s prior work and should speak with the student before filing a violation if the flagged content is less than 50%. Ultimately, students are responsible for proving originality by providing drafts, notes, outlines, or revision history.

Redemption

Requests to change a grade of XF may be made only after two semesters at the university following the imposition of a penalty with no student conduct or academic integrity infractions. In order to have the X removed from the transcript, a student should complete the X-Removal Form in the Registrar’s Office (note that the grade of F will remain). Any student qualified to have an X removed, but who transfers or otherwise leaves the university before submitting an X-Removal Form, may do so after leaving the university. The X will automatically be removed from the transcript of any student who graduates from BPC. 

Academic Integrity Training

All violations except expulsion require completion of:

1. “Your Story” Reflection - describing the violation and lessons learned.
2. Academic Integrity Module / Meeting - teaching proper research, citation, and AI guidelines.

The AI Training Module must be completed through the Student Enrichment Center (SEC) before the deadline stated in the official notification. Off campus students may make arrangements to complete the module via Skype, Google Meet, or other virtual meeting software).

Students failing to complete the module by the stated deadline will be assessed a $50 fine and suspended from class attendance with unexcused absences until the module has been completed. Failure to complete training may also result in a registration hold and potential further action.

Academic Integrity Process and Appeals

1. Initial Discovery and Reporting:

Instructors should report a suspected violation to Provost within 7 calendar days of discovery. 

However, when dealing with a possible Artificial Intelligence violation, the offense should be submitted within 10 days of discovery following the steps and timeline below:

• Contact student within 2 days
• Student has 5 days to respond
• Professor has 3 days to submit report to Provost

If the offense is less than 50% according to AI detector and the student fails to respond to the instructor’s initial contact, the violation will be processed. 

2. Upon verification and review of the report, the Provost or designee will notify the student of the allegation within two (2) business days, excluding periods of institutional closure or documented administrative unavailability.

3. The student responds within 5 days to accept or appeal the sanction or allegation. Students accepting the allegation may proceed with the Integrity Training. For students wishing to appeal their case will be heard by the Appeals Committee. Failing to respond within the 5 days will be treated as an admission of guilt and an appeal will not be afforded to the student without extreme circumstances. Appeals are submitted in writing. The Appeals Committee reviews written evidence and may, at its discretion, invite either the student or instructor to appear if clarification is needed.

4. The Appeals Committee meets bi-weekly (as needed) and reviews all available evidence and decides. If within the appeal letter, the student admits responsibility, the Committee may elect to reduce the sanction for blue or yellow-Level violations.

5. If upheld, the student may further appeal to the Provost as final reviewer. The Provost in consultation with an Advisory Board (composed of at least three institutional leaders) may uphold, reduce, or remand the sanction but will not remove the violation if the student admitted guilt.

Grounds for Appeal:

1. Procedural error.
2. New evidence.
3. Excessively harsh sanction.

=========

Academic Integrity Policy - Clarifications (2025-2026)

The following clarifications and addenda are to be read in conjunction with the 2025-2026 Academic Integrity Policy. These additions are intended to close gaps in interpretation, ensure consistency across courses, and preserve the integrity of Brewton-Parker Christian University’s academic mission.

1. English and Writing-Focused Courses

In English and other writing-focused courses, students must submit original drafts that reflect their own unaided writing, with only minimal reliance on built-in spell check tools (such as Microsoft Word or Google Docs automatic spelling underlines). Advanced language correction tools (Grammarly, Microsoft Editor, QuillBot, AI writing assistants, etc.) should be applied only after the unaided draft is complete.

The inclusion of both versions as part of the final submission ensures that faculty can evaluate the student’s authentic writing ability as well as their revision process. Faculty may specify whether drafts are to be submitted in an appendix or as separate documents.

Required syllabus guidelines:
In this course, you are expected to show your own writing ability as well as your ability to revise and improve with feedback and tools. To do this:

First, write on your own. Your first draft must be written in your own words, without help from Grammarly, Microsoft Editor, or any other grammar/spelling tools.

Then, revise. After you have written your draft, you may use Grammarly and similar tools to help polish your work.

Submit both. With your final paper, you must turn in:

Your original unaided draft, and your revised final version.

This helps your instructor see both your authentic writing ability and how you apply corrections. Your grade will reflect both your original effort and the quality of your revisions.

2. Citation Escalation Across Courses

Repeat citation mistakes across multiple courses may escalate to academic misconduct if students fail to correct their behavior after receiving feedback. Faculty should document prior warnings or corrections when recommending escalation.

3. Appeals and Sanction Reductions

Sanction reductions may be considered by the Appeals Committee for Blue or Yellow violations if the student admits responsibility in writing. This option is not available for Orange- or Red-level violations.

4. Training Scope for Citation Mistakes

Citation mistakes at the 300-level and above may require Academic Tutoring in addition to grade deductions. This reinforces proper citation practices and ensures student development in advanced coursework.

*Students are given the same time as integrity training violations (5 calendar days to contact SEC to schedule it)

            * Failure to complete the training results in integrity violation recommendation.

*Instructors will need to notify the SEC and follow-up with Mrs. Davidson on completion.

5. Faculty Sanction Documentation

Faculty must record the rationale when applying optional sanctions (e.g., resubmission, tutoring referral) to ensure consistency across courses and fairness to students. This documentation should be submitted along with the violation report.

=======================

 

Student Summary - Academic Integrity & AI Policy (BPCU)

Brewton-Parker Christian University (BPCU) expects honesty and originality in all academic work. This includes traditional assignments, group projects, lab work, and use of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

What’s Considered Academic Dishonesty?

• Plagiarism - Using someone else’s words or ideas without proper credit.
• Self-Plagiarism - Reusing your own work from another class or semester without permission.
• Lack of Original Ideas - Submitting work with no personal analysis or unique thought, even if cited.
• Inappropriate Assistance - Getting or giving help on work without permission.
• Lying / Falsification - Giving false excuses, altering data, or falsifying records.
• Complicity - Helping or encouraging someone to break academic rules.
• AI Misuse - Using AI to create academic content without approval or failing to cite approved use.

Using AI the Right Way

• AI is only allowed if your instructor says so.
• If approved, you must cite the AI tool used and follow instructor guidelines.
• AI may not be used as a “credible source” unless specifically allowed.

Sanctions (Consequences)

• First minor offenses: grade reduction, resubmission, required training.
• Repeat or major offenses: zero on assignment, course failure (XF), suspension, or expulsion.
• AI detection scores are not proof - professors will conduct oral competency checks and may review your notes, drafts, and supporting evidence prior to submitting a violation. Have your writing process documents ready and ensure you understand the subject matter to avoid an official allegation.

How to Protect Yourself

• Always ask your instructor if you’re unsure about using sources, getting help, or using AI.
• Keep drafts, notes, and outlines to prove originality.
• Learn correct citation and paraphrasing.

Remember: Integrity is part of your faith and your future.