When AI Gets You Accused: What to Do if Your School Says You Used ChatGPT
The New “Cheating” Accusation on Campus
Across the U.S., universities are increasingly treating the use of Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) online tools like ChatGPT as a form of academic misconduct for undergraduate students, graduate students, and faculty. Some schools automatically trigger disciplinary investigations when they believe AI was used to write an essay, assignment, take home examination, or academic article, even if the student is not sure what counts as unauthorized use.
In many cases, a finding of “AI‑assisted plagiarism” or “unauthorized aid” can lead to failing grades, probation, suspension, or expulsion. Unfortunately, many students may be being accused unfairly. AI‑detection software is notoriously unreliable, yet universities may treat the detector’s score as if it were proof of misconduct.
Why AI Detection Tools Are So Unreliable
Universities often rely on tools such as Turnitin AI Writing Indicator, GPTZero, Originality.ai and others when investigating suspected “AI writing.” But these tools were designed as educational aids, not definitive evidence, and their use pose a number of problems.
High False-Positive Rates & Reliability Gaps
Even Turnitin itself cautions that its “AI score” should not be treated as conclusive evidence of misconduct. “Our AI writing detection model may not always be accurate (it may misidentify human-written, AI-generated, and AI-generated and AI-paraphrased text), so it should not be used as the sole basis for adverse actions against a student.”
Independent analyses have found AI detection tools provide false-positive rates between 5% and 20%, meaning genuine student work can be wrongly flagged. See, for example, Inside Higher Ed’s coverage of professors urging caution and Temple University’s evaluation of Turnitin’s AI-Writing Indicator.
Disproportionate Impact on Non-Native English Speakers
A Stanford University study found that AI detectors frequently misclassify essays by non-native English speakers as AI-generated due to predictable or formulaic phrasing.
Follow-up reports from Education Week, Advanced Science News, and TechXplore confirm the same bias pattern.
International and ESL students are therefore at significantly higher risk of false accusations.
No Transparency
Most AI‑detectors are proprietary black boxes, with unverifiable algorithms.
Constantly Changing Algorithms
A text flagged today may not be flagged tomorrow, undermining consistency.
What to Do If You’re Accused of Using ChatGPT
If you receive a notice from your professor or academic integrity office, take action immediately:
- Don’t respond impulsively. Wait until you understand the full case.
2. Preserve all relevant materials – drafts, notes, version histories.
3. Request the evidence – ask for the detector report and version.
4. Review your university’s policy – what counts as unauthorized aid?
5. Consult an attorney experienced in university discipline – early guidance can prevent escalation.
You Have Rights, Even in a University Setting
Although university disciplinary proceedings are not criminal trials, students are still entitled to basic procedural protections and fundamental fairness.
At public colleges and universities, students have constitutional due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. That means the school must provide notice of the charges, access to the evidence, and a meaningful opportunity to respond before imposing serious sanctions like suspension or expulsion.
At private colleges and universities, those same protections arise through contract law and the institution’s own policies. Courts have consistently held that even private schools must conduct disciplinary proceedings in a manner that is fundamentally fair, consistent with their handbooks and promises to students.
In nearly all cases, students are permitted to have a support person or advisor present, often a parent, advocate, or attorney. Even when lawyers are not allowed to speak during the hearing, their preparation, strategy, and presence can make a decisive difference.
If your school relied solely on an AI detection report or treated it as conclusive evidence of misconduct, that lack of fairness can justify a formal appeal or legal challenge. Universities must base their findings on credible, verifiable evidence, not on opaque algorithms or unreliable “AI scores.”
What About Faculty and Graduate Students?
Professors, TAs, and graduate researchers face similar risks from AI‑plagiarism accusations. Our firm represents faculty and graduate student respondents in research integrity and authorship disputes.
How Our Firm Helps
At Nesenoff & Miltenberg LLP, we focus on defending students, parents, and faculty in academic disciplinary matters nationwide. We understand how AI‑related accusations arise and how to challenge unreliable evidence. We assist with early consultations, drafting responses, evaluating detector reports, representing clients at hearings, negotiating outcomes, and if necessary, bringing the case to court.
Sources & Further Reading
Articles
Turnitin Help Center, AI Writing Detection in the Classic Report View (https://guides.turnitin.com/hc/en-us/articles/28457596598925-AI-writing-detection-in-the-classic-report-view)
Turnitin, AI Writing Detection: What Academic Leaders Need to Know as the Technology Matures (https://www.turnitin.com/blog/ai-writing-detection-what-academic-leaders-need-to-know-as-technology-matures)
Temple University, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Turnitin’s AI Writing Indicator Model (https://teaching.temple.edu/sites/teaching/files/media/document/Evaluating%20the%20Effectiveness%20of%20Turnitin%E2%80%99s%20AI%20Writing%20Indicator%20Model.pdf)
Inside Higher Ed, Professors Proceed with Caution Using AI Detection Tools (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/tech-innovation/artificial-intelligence/2024/02/09/professors-proceed-caution-using-ai)
Stanford HAI, AI Detectors Biased Against Non-Native English Writers (https://hai.stanford.edu/news/ai-detectors-biased-against-non-native-english-writers)
Education Week, Another AI Issue for Schools to Know About: Bias Against Non-Native English Speakers (https://www.edweek.org/technology/another-ai-issue-for-schools-to-know-about-bias-against-non-native-english-speakers/2023/08)
Advanced Science News, AI Detectors Have a Bias Against Non-Native English Speakers (https://www.advancedsciencenews.com/ai-detectors-have-a-bias-against-non-native-english-speakers/)
TechXplore, Study Reveals Bias in AI Text-Detection Tools, Especially Toward Non-Native English Writers (https://techxplore.com/news/2025-06-reveals-bias-ai-text-tools.html)
Johns Hopkins University, Generative AI Detection Tools: Limitations and Recommendations for Faculty (https://teaching.jhu.edu/university-teaching-policies/generative-ai/detection-tools/)
Scalenut, How Accurate Is Turnitin AI Detection? (https://www.scalenut.com/blogs/how-accurate-is-turnitin-ai-detection)
Cases – Public Universities (Due Process – Fourteenth Amendment)
Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) — held that students at public schools are entitled to notice of the charges, an explanation of the evidence, and an opportunity to present their side of the story before being suspended or expelled.
Doe v. University of Cincinnati, 872 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2017) — confirmed that suspension or expulsion from a public university triggers due process protection and that students must receive notice, an opportunity to respond, and a hearing before an unbiased decision-maker.
Flaim v. Medical College of Ohio, 418 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2005) — clarified that public university disciplinary hearings need not mirror criminal trials but must still be meaningful and fundamentally fair, allowing the accused to be present, present evidence, and, in some cases, cross-examine witnesses.
Plummer v. University of Houston, 860 F.3d 767 (5th Cir. 2017) — emphasized that while universities have discretion in managing discipline, they must balance educational goals with a student’s protected interest in reputation and continued enrollment.
Cases – Private Universities (Fundamental Fairness & Contractual Rights)
Z.J. v. Vanderbilt University, 355 F.Supp.3d 646 (M.D. Tenn. 2018) — held that under contract law, private universities owe students a duty of good faith and fundamental fairness in disciplinary proceedings.
Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason University, 149 F.Supp.3d 602 (E.D. Va. 2016) — found that fundamental fairness requires a fair opportunity to defend oneself and an impartial arbiter before life-altering disciplinary sanctions.
Furey v. Temple University, 884 F.Supp.2d 223 (E.D. Pa. 2012) — reiterated that cross-examination may be necessary to avoid mistaken disciplinary outcomes, stressing that the university must conduct proceedings fairly and without bias.
