A look at how Pacific’s new AI framework and course policies are affecting faculty and student approaches to artificial intelligence.
AI can help students brainstorm an essay or write it for them. At Pacific, where professors draw the line between assistance and academic dishonesty depends on the rules they set for their courses.
In a July 25, 2026 announcement, University of the Pacific outlined a framework for responsible AI use in teaching, research and university operations. Its guiding principle is that the technology should support human judgment rather than replace it.
Pacific’s Artificial Intelligence Task Force spent six months developing the recommendations. Led by Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs Gretchen Edwalds-Gilbert and guided by Assistant Provost Mehdi Khazaeli, the group included students, faculty and staff.
“AI is a technology that many at the University use in some aspect of their work, and its use will only increase,” Edwalds-Gilbert said in the University announcement.
The framework gives schools, colleges, and administrative units room to develop policies suited to their needs. Understanding what that approach means for coursework requires looking at the instructions students receive in individual classes.
Pacific’s Honor Code provides the broader academic integrity rules. It identifies using resources without instructor authorization and engaging in conduct specifically prohibited through a syllabus or other course communication as examples of cheating. The policy also identifies submitting assignments obtained wholly or partly from unauthorized online resources as plagiarism.
For political science professor Dan O’Neill, Pacific’s AI framework has not changed how he runs his classes. He said he had already structured assignments to limit opportunities for students to have AI complete their work.
“I have AI-proofed my classes already even before this AI framework, and have students write assignments in class where I can see them,” O’Neill said.
O’Neill supports AI as a learning tool, drawing a distinction between using it to understand material and having it complete assignments. He also uses the technology himself when preparing multiple-choice exams.
While writing a question and identifying the correct answer can be straightforward, O’Neill said developing three incorrect choices for each question on a 50-question exam is more difficult. He uses AI to help generate those alternatives, while emphasizing that its output must always be fact-checked and proofread.
His approach illustrates how an instructor can use AI in course preparation while requiring students to demonstrate their own understanding through work completed in class.
Students understanding these boundaries involves more than identifying which tool they are using. The relevant instructions may address what assistance is permitted, which assignments allow it and whether students must disclose or document its use. Some students may forgo the use of AI to help on assignments in favor of study tools.
For Gerome Lauser, ‘26 (Business - Finance), AI provides a way to study course material and better understand his mistakes.
“NotebookLM is a very versatile tool,” Lauser said. “I use it to study for business classes.”
Lauser said AI “helps me visualize my mistakes,” allowing him to review where he went wrong through feedback he considers unbiased. His experience offers a concrete example of using the technology in a way that embraces new advances as well as building his capacity to learn in new and engaging ways.
A May 2026 preprint by Pacific researchers Michele Gibney, Sinky Zheng, and colleagues examined AI use within the university community. The survey received 355 responses, including 204 students, 83 faculty members, 63 staff members, and five residents. Among respondents answering the question about large language model use, the researchers reported that 42.9% used the tools weekly or daily.
In that token, Pacific’s task force also proposed training tailored to students, faculty and staff, including instruction on responsible use, digital literacy and ethical decision-making. Faculty development recommendations included helping instructors incorporate generative AI while addressing academic and ethical concerns.
The University’s Center for Teaching and Learning has developed resources addressing AI syllabus language and assignment redesign, according to Pacific’s public faculty resources page. Those materials offer another source for understanding how university guidance translates into classroom expectations.
For Pacific students, the question of acceptable AI use comes down to the work in front of them and the expectations attached to it. The University’s framework provides broad guidance, but course and assignment instructions determine where artificial intelligence fits into the learning environment.
Sources:
Gibney, M., Zheng, S., Davia, C., Gietzen, L., Sarafian, K. M., Helgren, J., Bains, R., Bianchi, J., Lloyd, A., & Raja, B. (2026). Generative AI in Higher Education: A Survey Analysis of Ethics and Adoption Patterns Across University Faculty, Staff, and Students. , 1–22. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/libraries-articles/124