Department of Communication AI Policy AI cannot substitute for foundational learning. Students must acquire disciplinary knowledge and critical thinking skills in order to evaluate AI outputs appropriately. Thus, the Communication Department will maintain a 25% tolerance threshold for AI use in completing assignments. That means, unless explicitly stated by your instructor for a specific assignment, any work that is submitted as AI generated at a rate of 26% or higher will receive a zero on their grade and require a conversation with the instructor. In those cases where assignment instructions allow for AI use, students must certify that they have reviewed, verified and edited all AI outputs, which may include AI prompts used. Students should treat AI as a partner in thought and creation, not as a shortcut or a substitute for human expertise, ethics, and judgment. Students should not input sensitive, personal, confidential, copyrighted or proprietary information into public AI tools (e.g. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) as it is illegal and violates expectations of privacy and academic/creative work. AI is allowed for certain assignments (see individual assignment instructions for details). However, presenting AI-generated work as entirely one’s own in a course that does not permit such use, or using AI in ways explicitly prohibited in assignment instructions, constitutes a violation of SUU Policy 6.33: Academic Misconduct and opens the violator up to a series of potential sanctions.
AI in this course specifically The department policy applies here as written, with a 25% tolerance threshold unless an assignment says otherwise. Three things are specific to media law.
AI models fabricate case citations. This is the single most important thing to know in this course. Large language models invent plausible-looking case names, reporter volumes, page numbers, and holdings for cases that do not exist. They do it confidently and in correct citation format. Courts have sanctioned practicing attorneys for filing briefs containing them — this is not a hypothetical risk, it is a recurring news story about real lawyers losing real money.
The rule that follows: if you cite a case in this class, you must have read it. Not a summary of it, not a description of it — the opinion. Verify every citation against the actual text before it goes into your paper. A fabricated citation in an IRAC brief or the case study is treated as a fabricated source, which is an academic integrity matter regardless of how it was produced.
Reading a case is the skill being assessed. The Foundations assignments and the IRAC briefs exist to prove you can locate an opinion, find the holding, and apply it. An AI summary of a case is not that skill — it is a substitute for it, which is exactly what the department policy says AI cannot be. Use of AI to produce the analysis in an IRAC brief or the case study is prohibited.
Where AI is permitted the assignment instructions will say so explicitly, along with the limits, and you must certify that you reviewed, verified, and edited every output, including the prompts, as the department policy requires. AI is generally useful in this course for explaining a term you do not know, suggesting where to look next, and checking your own finished prose for clarity.
Campus resources. Every SUU student is entitled to campus resources and services, including the Writing Center, the Disability Resource Center, and counseling and wellness services. Online students have access to the same services; ask me if you are not sure how to reach them remotely.
A note on course materials. Media law is taught through real cases, and several involve mature subject matter — obscenity doctrine, defamation of public figures, and privacy litigation among them. One film, The People vs. Larry Flynt, is rated R with substantial mature content and is optional for everyone; the governing opinion and the assigned clips are sufficient for full credit. Where a module includes difficult material, the module description says so in advance.