update number four! welcome back. last week we left off taking a look at how educators plan on teaching learners the faults of ai, and how to understand them.
up until now, we’ve only taken a look outside, away from uvic itself. today, i think it’s time we look in, and talk about the policies in place at uvic. last week i briefly mentioned dr. irvine discussing new policies, but i was unfamiliar with the details; so let’s familiarize ourselves!
recently, as we all know; are might not know, there have been big changes to uvic’s academic integrity policies. through a quick google, i found a article in the times colonist about it: UVic can now punish AI cheaters, even after graduation written by Michael John Lo, a former uvic student.
some major points are as follows: this new policy is to give instructors more power when it comes to addressing ai use and its punishment, during, or even after graduation. this new policy can be enacted if the instructor finds it “more likely than not” that a student has gone against academic rules, no longer needing compelling information or proof.
additionally, these cases can be opened up at any time. an instructor can look at any past work, post the students graduation or not, and inflict punishment; even a revoked degree. its not stated anywhere in the policy’s report, nor is there any explicit policy on how it works.
its been reported that cases of academic violations have increased by 23 percent between 2023, and 2024. Angus Shaw, the university’s independent ombudsperson, also stated that uvic’s cheating policies have been “perhaps [pushed] to its limits.”, saying instructors are increasingly “working backwards from a hunch” to accuse students of ai use. some fear that this can harm students with zero intent of cheating; students with disabilities whom use aid like text-to-speech or screen readers are also at risk.
that’s a lot to digest.
through the uvic website, we can take a look closer at this new policy; New academic integrity policy effective September 2026, and additionally the actual appendix for this policy. in here, it states that the new “Standard of Proof”, is anything greater than a 50% likelihood. another interesting read is that on appeals. it says “Appeals focus on whether the correct procedures were followed, rather than re‑evaluating the academic judgement itself.”. this means the coin flip cannot be debated on, only that they went about the procedure correctly.
previously we took a look at an article by Gwen Nguyen about ai literacy. she mentions her take on the definition of pedagogy, stating its “the art of walking alongside learners.”, where true teaching requires active listening, respect, and guiding students through their mistakes. as quoted, this new policy encourages instructors to “work backwards from a hunch”, looking to surpass a 51% threshold.
an interesting dynamic, that’ll be left at that.