Who is responsible?
A chartered committee, written roles for faculty and leaders, and a named owner of the AI tool inventory.
AI Policy for Higher Education
Your board wants an AI policy.
You need a plan to deliver it.
A 13-week governance engagement for Christian higher education. We help your president, COO, provost, and faculty move from a board mandate to a policy ready for review, adoption, and use across campus.
Schedule a call with KurianThe opportunity
The mandate is clear. The work behind it is not.
A policy document alone will not answer who approved the tools, how student data is handled, or whether faculty had a say. Your board needs an accountable process. We coordinate the charter, audit, drafting, review, training, and adoption work so the person tasked with delivery does not have to invent that process alone.
What we cover
Four questions your policy should answer.
A useful policy does more than say “use AI responsibly.” It tells people how to make decisions and what happens when something goes wrong.
What is allowed?
Four tiers of use, from open to prohibited, with disclosure rules, an approval process, and room for course-level guidance.
How is data protected?
Review tools by the data they touch. Set expectations for vendor use of student data, retention, security, and new purchases.
What happens when something goes wrong?
Clear incident responsibilities and a fair process for misconduct: notice, evidence, human review, a response, and an appeal.
Built with your campus, not handed to it.
The working group brings together academic leadership, faculty across departments, theology or Bible faculty, IT, legal counsel, the registrar, a student voice, and your accreditation liaison. Smaller campuses can combine roles. Faculty comment and leadership review are built into the process.
Shared responsibility
The right people. Before the final draft.
A single author can produce a document. An accountable working group can produce a policy your institution can actually adopt. We help establish a charter, decision rights, and a review process with the people who will have to put it into practice.
| Who participates | What they contribute | Risk if they are missing |
|---|---|---|
| Provost or academic leader | Connects the policy to academic standards and the institution’s approval process. | Rules without the authority or ownership to carry them forward. |
| Faculty representatives | Bring classroom experience from different departments and lead faculty feedback. | Requirements that do not fit teaching practice or earn faculty support. |
| Theology or Bible faculty | Check drafts against your statement of faith and community commitments. | Faith language added at the end rather than shaping decisions. |
| IT lead | Reviews infrastructure, security, tool access, and implementation needs. | Rules that cannot be supported by campus systems. |
| Legal counsel | Reviews applicable student-data requirements, liability, and vendor terms. | Legal and contractual concerns discovered late in the process. |
| Registrar | Maps how student records move through systems and workflows. | Student-data use that the working group has not accounted for. |
| Student voice | Explains real student use and where rules need to be clearer. | A policy disconnected from the people expected to follow it. |
| Accreditation liaison | Connects the evidence trail to the institution’s review needs. | Decisions without the records needed to explain how they were made. |
What’s included
Practical work. Clear deliverables.
Mission-led preamble
A clear statement of why your institution engages AI, drawn from your own convictions.
Tool inventory and vendor audit
Current tools mapped to data use, with vendor concerns identified for review.
Procurement checklist
A consistent review of fit, privacy, security, accessibility, and contract terms.
Acceptable-use framework
Four tiers from open to prohibited, with disclosure rules and course-level guidance.
Counsel review package
Policy and vendor questions organized for your legal counsel’s review and sign-off.
Handbook and syllabus language
Practical language that connects the policy to everyday teaching and campus expectations.
Board-ready policy and presentation
A 5–10 page core policy, supporting appendices, and a cabinet or board presentation.
Documented decision trail
The charter, meeting records, draft history, and faculty comment log.
Training and ownership plan
Faculty, student, and staff materials, with named owners and an annual review schedule.
How we work
A clear path. Shared ownership.
A typical engagement runs 13 weeks, with overlapping phases. Tell us about a board meeting or accreditation deadline so we can discuss what is realistic without skipping important review.
- 01
Charter · Weeks 1–2
Form the committee, assign responsibilities, and agree on the scope and timeline.
- 02
Audit · Weeks 2–4
Review current policies, AI tools, student-data use, and vendor contracts.
- 03
Draft · Weeks 4–7
Write mission-aligned rules for acceptable use, academic integrity, and procurement.
- 04
Review · Weeks 7–9
Gather faculty comments and refine the draft with leadership and legal counsel.
- 05
Publish · Weeks 9–11
Prepare policy language for handbooks, syllabi, and campus communications.
- 06
Train · Weeks 11–12
Equip faculty, students, and staff to understand and apply the policy.
- 07
Ratify · Week 13
Present the policy for board adoption and establish ownership and an annual review.
Your institution owns the policy and makes the final decisions. Your legal counsel reviews and approves legal requirements; Servant does not replace counsel.
Start an internal conversation
Where are the gaps today?
A board deadline can create urgency without creating a delivery process. Use these prompts to identify what your working group still needs.
Select any gaps you recognize to prepare for a conversation with your team.
A discussion aid, not an audit or readiness score. Your selections stay in this page and are not submitted or saved.
For the colleague receiving this page
You do not need to have been in the room.
Bring the mandate, not a finished policy.
For the president, COO, or provost: bring your board deadline, existing policies, known AI tools, and approval process. We will discuss the working group, review responsibilities, and whether the 13-week plan fits. Your institution retains approval authority; your counsel reviews legal questions.
Servant’s broader education work includes Austin Christian University and Wesley Seminary. Explore our existing partnerships for context. These are not claims of results from the new AI Policy or AEO engagements.
Explore our workBefore we talk
A few useful answers.
Can you build on our existing policy?
Yes. We review what you already have, keep what works, and address gaps rather than starting over by default.
How does our faith shape the policy?
The policy begins with your mission and statement of faith. Your theology faculty and leadership help connect the rules to your convictions and community standards.
Who handles legal approval?
We coordinate review with your legal counsel, including student-data and vendor concerns. Your counsel determines the requirements that apply and provides legal sign-off. Servant does not replace counsel.
Do AI detectors decide misconduct cases?
No. The proposed framework requires human review and a fair opportunity to respond and appeal. A detector flag alone does not determine the outcome.
What happens after adoption?
Your institution owns enforcement, the tool inventory, and ongoing review. We establish an annual review and triggers for earlier updates when tools, regulations, or incidents change the situation.