Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ai Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Trustees review proposed AI policy; several request delay for stronger enforcement and guideline language
Summary
Tennessee State—s draft artificial intelligence policy, required by Public Chapter 550, was presented March 13; trustees requested more time to refine enforcement language, guidance for faculty and students, training requirements and coverage of personal devices and contractors before sending the policy to the state.
A draft university-wide artificial intelligence policy intended to comply with Tennessee—s recent public law was discussed March 13. General Counsel Attorney Brown presented the policy and said public chapter 550 (state law enacted in the prior year) requires institutions to adopt AI policies affecting instruction, assignments and the campus community by July 1, 2025, and to submit them to legislative education committees.
Brown said the draft policy aligns with guidance from the Tennessee Higher Education Commission and Southern regional bodies and that internal stakeholder input (faculty fellows, academic affairs and IT) had been sought. The draft expands beyond instruction to address staff and contractors and includes provisions for posting guidance and training.
Trustees raised several concerns and recommended additional work before formal approval:
- Enforcement and discipline: Trustees asked how violations would be detected and who would be responsible for enforcement. The administration said student misuse would be treated under the university code of student conduct and academic-misconduct procedures; faculty and staff misuse would follow standard personnel and IT compliance processes. Trustees asked for clearer enforcement procedures and responsible offices to be named in the policy.
- Guidelines and training: Several trustees asked that implementation guidelines and training materials accompany the policy for faculty, staff and students. Administration representatives said guidelines and training are being developed, that some AI tools (e.g., Copilot) will require licensing and training before use, and that the policy would be treated as an evolving document.
- Scope and contractors: Trustees asked what "contractors and affiliates" means in practice; Brown said the university will insert language in vendor contracts requiring adherence to TSU AI policy where appropriate and vet third-party tools through IT and legal review.
- Personal devices and network access: Trustees asked whether the policy and guidelines apply to personal devices. Interim CIO Sterling Sanders said the university can block access to specified external AI tools at the network firewall level for university networks, and Brown and Melton agreed that privacy and security language should be included and clarified to cover both institutional devices and in-scope uses on personal devices when connected to university systems.
After discussion, at least one trustee explicitly recommended not approving the policy at the March meeting and asked for an additional review cycle that would include the draft guidelines and training materials. Administration said it would take the trustees— feedback, refine the policy and return with supporting guidelines and a plan for training and enforcement.
The discussion also noted the existence of a university AI research center, AI faculty fellows and an ongoing AI course offering for faculty and staff. Trustees asked for clarity on the center—s funding and any institutional obligations should grant support lapse.
