University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign AI Policy
Last verified October 24, 2026 · AI-assisted research and drafting · Maintained by Plagiarism Checker Online, operated by Markus Nick
The short answer: According to the published guidance checked October 24, 2026: CITL's teaching guidance asks faculty to define AI boundaries for assignments and assessments in their syllabi and says AI-generated text and ideas must be cited. This is pedagogical guidance, not blanket permission for every course; follow the actual course instructions and Student Code.
Key facts, with sources
| Topic | What the school publishes | Source |
|---|---|---|
| School | Public, four-year institution in Champaign, IL | Source |
| Official policy | Academic integrity policy | Source |
| Plagiarism definition | Section1-402 prohibits representing another's words, work or ideas as one's own. It requires prompt acknowledgment of paraphrases even when wording differs substantially, as well as quotation marks or indentation and citation for direct quotations. | Source |
| Generative AI | Instructor decides. CITL's teaching guidance asks faculty to define AI boundaries for assignments and assessments in their syllabi and says AI-generated text and ideas must be cited. This is pedagogical guidance, not blanket permission for every course; follow the actual course instructions and Student Code. | Source |
| Sanctions | Published options, not a mandatory sequence or an individual outcome; see the linked policy. | Source |
| Citation styles | MLA, Turabian The Code gives style manuals as examples for academic departments, not a single campus-wide required style. | Source |
| Appeals | The ordinary route is a written Notice of Appeal to the Appeal Manager with supported grounds: outcome-affecting procedural error, bias/conflict, inappropriate sanctions or qualifying new information. Category1 acceptance waives appeal. Recommendations for suspension or dismissal use Section1-405(g), including deadlines triggered by the EO's notice rather than the ordinary instructor notice. Deadline stated: Ordinary route: five business days from the Instructor's Decision Notice. Special suspension/dismissal route: see Section1-405(g) and the EO's notice for the applicable five-business-day trigger and recipient.. | Source |
| Summary scope | Independent AI-assisted summary of the Illinois Student Code and CITL teaching guidance, not affiliated with the university. Sanction categories, ordinary appeals, Category1 waivers and suspension/dismissal procedures are distinct; no individual result is predicted. | Source |
In the school's own words
“represent the words, work, or ideas of another as their own”
Plagiarism definition: source, checked October 24, 2026.
“Faculty should clearly define the boundaries for using AI”
Generative AI policy: source, checked October 24, 2026.
Published outcomes and review levels
These are the published options or review limits below, not a predicted outcome or an automatic sequence. Follow the linked policy for the applicable process.
- Category 1. A sanction agreed to in writing by instructor and student; acceptance waives appeal of the finding and sanction.
- Category 2. Authorized options include warning, educational work, reduced or failing assignment grade, reduced course grade or denial of proficiency-exam credit.
- Category 3 and additional recommendations. A failing course grade or degree assessment is Category3. Suspension or dismissal recommendations follow separate procedures. Categories are not a mandatory sequence.
What students at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign should know
Illinois makes an important distinction between changing a source's wording and acknowledging its ideas. Student Code Section 1-402 requires prompt credit for a paraphrase or summary even when your words differ substantially from the original; citing one direct quotation does not automatically credit neighboring paraphrases. For AI, CITL's teaching guidance asks faculty to state boundaries in the syllabus and reminds them that generated text and ideas need citation. That guidance is not a promise that every assignment permits the same assistance. If an instructor raises an integrity allegation, read the sanction category before accepting a proposed resolution. Under Section 1-404, accepting a Category 1 sanction agreed in writing waives appeal of both the finding and sanction. Categories 2 and 3 contain other authorized outcomes; they are not a compulsory progression. The ordinary appeal route requires a written Notice of Appeal to the Appeal Manager within five business days of the Instructor's Decision Notice, with one or more supported grounds. A recommendation for suspension or dismissal follows a special route, including different notice triggers; consult Section 1-405(g) rather than applying the ordinary deadline mechanically. Procedural error, outcome-affecting bias or conflict, inappropriate sanctions, and qualifying new information are the published grounds. Keep your notice and course instructions, and ask the responsible academic unit which route governs your case.
Frequently asked questions
No. Section1-402 requires prompt acknowledgment for paraphrased or summarized material even when your wording differs substantially. Citing a direct quotation does not by itself acknowledge neighboring paraphrases from the same source.
Section1-404 says accepting a Category1 sanction agreed in writing waives appeal of both the finding and the sanction under the ordinary appeal provision. Read the proposed resolution before agreeing; this summary does not advise how you should decide your own case.
No. The ordinary rule runs from the Instructor's Decision Notice, but suspension or dismissal recommendations follow special procedures in Section1-405(g), with deadlines based on the EO's notice. Check the applicable section, grounds and recipient rather than using a generic five-day rule.
Every row links to its source. Independent summary, not affiliated with University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. Found a mistake? Report a correction.
Next step for most readers: our guide to university AI policies.
A related topic we cover in depth: how AI writing is treated in academic work.
See what a scan finds in your draft
A report can support your own review; it does not establish permission or decide academic misconduct. From $0.29 per page, minimum order $0.90.
Start plagiarism check