From the Student Success edition of October 26, 2026
College of DuPage leaves classroom AI rules to faculty, has no college-wide detector or AI-specific appeals process, and is surveying students on AI readiness
College of DuPage · Community college teaching, assessment and academic integrity · Glen Ellyn, Illinois, United States
- Publisher
- The Courier
- Original publication
- The Courier (College of DuPage student newspaper), 26 October 2026
- Source retrieved
- 2026-10-27
What happened
College of DuPage has no official college-wide rules for classroom AI use; the president said teaching is left to faculty and the college provides resources and training. Faculty association leaders said the faculty contract protects academic freedom. Instructors described reworking assignments toward in-class assessment, personal essays and analysis tied to specific research. The president said COD has not adopted a college-wide AI detection tool, that no detector is perfect, and that he was not aware of an AI-specific appeals process; the Academic Code of Conduct does not explicitly address AI. Some students who do not use AI worry their work will be mistaken for AI-generated, one reason COD is developing an AI student readiness survey with Phi Theta Kappa. Adjuncts are rarely on policy committees.
Why it matters
Shows a large community college relying on faculty-level assessment redesign rather than detection, with gaps in AI-specific integrity procedures and adjunct input.
Evidence and measured results
Interviews in student reporting; no quantitative data.
Limitations and uncertainty
Single institution; interview-based; survey results not yet available.
Put this evidence to work
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation, grounded in this source. Enriched 2026-10-27; this does not change the original publication date. Each role follows the same checklist so takeaways compare across sources.
Sales
Role takeaway
- Customer problem
- Course-by-course AI rules and a conduct code that does not mention AI leave students uncertain and integrity handling uneven.
- Stakeholders
- College president and vice president of academic affairs
- Faculty association leaders
- Student conduct office
- Adjunct faculty representatives
- Discovery questions
- How are AI-related integrity cases handled and appealed today?
- Which outside detectors do instructors use, if any?
- How are adjuncts included in AI policy decisions?
- Value hypothesis
- Interpretation: clear AI-specific procedures and shared assessment guidance could reduce inconsistent treatment of students.
- Potential engagement
- An integrity-procedure review plus support analysing the AI student readiness survey.
- Unsupported claims
- That misconduct is increasing at COD
- That detectors would solve the problem
- Any measured student outcome
Pre-sales engineering
Role takeaway
- Fit
- Low technical intensity; focus on survey analysis and vetting of any tools used on student work.
- Architecture and integration
- LMS-based guidance and survey platform; no campus detector integration.
- Prerequisites
- Inventory of tools faculty use on student work
- Survey instrument and data access
- Privacy review process
- Constraints
- Academic freedom protections in faculty contract
- Decentralised tool choices
- No outcome data
- Security
- Assess whether independently chosen detectors transmit student work to third parties.
- Proof of value
- Tool inventory completed and reviewed
- Survey segments students reporting fear of false accusation
- Track AI-related case volumes once procedures exist
Delivery
Role takeaway
- Work
- Map integrity workflows, draft AI-specific conduct and appeals guidance, and support assessment redesign training.
- Dependencies
- Faculty association agreement
- Student conduct office
- Phi Theta Kappa survey partnership
- Ownership
- Vice president of academic affairs with the faculty association.
- Skills and adoption
- Faculty and adjunct training on assessment redesign and on fair handling of suspected AI use.
- Governance checkpoints
- Faculty association consultation
- Board or policy committee review of conduct-code changes
- Survey results review
- Acceptance criteria
- Proposed: conduct code references AI explicitly
- Proposed: documented appeals route for AI cases
- Proposed: adjunct representation on the AI policy committee
- Risks
- Inconsistent treatment across sections
- False accusations without recourse
- Faculty resistance to perceived limits on academic freedom
Implementation considerations
Lighthouse Advisory interpretation across the operating dimensions a public-sector buyer must settle before this evidence becomes a design. Each note answers the question under its heading for this specific source.
Architecture and integration
What must connect, and where does the AI sit in the workflow?
No campus detector integration; instructors may use outside tools independently, creating uneven data handling.
Governance
Who approves, reviews and stays accountable for outcomes?
Faculty contract and academic freedom shape policy; conduct code predates AI; no AI-specific appeals path identified.
Security and privacy
What data, permissions and controls need testing?
Instructors independently choosing outside detectors may send student work to third parties without central review; interpretation, not stated in the source.
Accessibility and workforce
Who is affected, and what skills or accommodations follow?
AI literacy classes open to faculty, staff and students including adjuncts; adjuncts have little policy input; one faculty leader had not used the college resources.
Procurement
What should contracts, pricing and exit terms secure?
No central detector purchased.
Operating model
Which teams own the service once it runs?
Course-by-course policy places integrity decisions and assessment redesign on individual instructors.
Publication history
- 2026-10-26Student Success · Issue 475 resources
Stable resource ID: cod-courier-college-of-dupage-leaves-ai-rules-to-faculty-no-detector-20261026