Executive Solution Overview
see attached **files (3)** – ## homeworksuggesthelpinfo.docx – ## FinalProjectEthicalLeadershipandPolicyDevelopmentonAIinHigherEducationGradingRubric.pdf – ## Week4Part1Project.docx **## homeworksuggesthelpinfo.docx** Help and proofread my report, help with addressing all requirements per instructio…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
see attached
**files (3)**
– ## homeworksuggesthelpinfo.docx
– ## FinalProjectEthicalLeadershipandPolicyDevelopmentonAIinHigherEducationGradingRubric.pdf
– ## Week4Part1Project.docx
**## homeworksuggesthelpinfo.docx**
Help and proofread my report, help with addressing all requirements per instruction. Keep in my voice and form. Need plagiarism and AI REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Institutional Selection Requirement
Before starting Part 1, select a real college or university (preferably SACSCOC-accredited) and
use it as your institutional context for all three parts of the final project.
You must:
• Reference the institution’s actual academic integrity policy, strategic plan, faculty Fayetteville state university in Fayetteville, NC
handbook, and/or AI guidelines (if available)
• Use institutional documents and web sources as part of your references (cite
appropriately)
• Apply the SACSCOC Good Practices in conjunction with your chosen institution’s
structure and needs
Part 1: Strategic Brief – Interpreting the SACSCOC Good Practices
Module: 4
Points: 150
Length: 4–6 pages
CLOs: A, F
Instructions
From your role as CAO, write a strategic leadership briefing that interprets the SACSCOC Good
Practices in the Use of Generative AI for your selected university. Your task is to assess your
institution’s readiness to respond and to define leadership priorities.
Your paper must include:
EDUC 759
Page 2 of 4
1. Executive Summary – A high-level summary of the SACSCOC guidance and why this
issue is critical for your institution
2. Role-Specific Responsibilities – Define the CAO’s leadership scope and how it connects
to AI governance, curriculum oversight, and faculty development
3. Institutional Gap and Opportunity Analysis – Identify 3–4 academic risk areas or
opportunities (e.g., syllabus language, inconsistent faculty practice, equity concerns),
referencing actual policies from your institution
4. Leadership Philosophy – Apply one ethical leadership theory (e.g., transformational,
adaptive) and one relevant Bible verse that informs your approach
5. APA-formatted references – Include scholarly sources, the SACSCOC Good Practices
document, and at least one institutional web-based source
Develop a balanced, enforceable academic integrity policy on the use of generative AI for your
Integrity, FERPA, Faculty Oversight)
• Quote or paraphrase relevant guidance with justification
EDUC 759
**## FinalProjectEthicalLeadershipandPolicyDevelopmentonAIinHigherEducationGradingRubric.pdf**
Criteria Ratings Points
Understanding
& Application of
SACSCOC
Good Practices
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Demonstrates comprehensive
understanding and applies
multiple relevant SACSCOC
guidelines directly and
accurately.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Demonstrates clear
understanding and
applies at least two
SACSCOC guidelines
effectively.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Limited or inaccurate
reference to
SACSCOC guidance;
lacks integration.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
present
30 pts
Institutional
Alignment
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses multiple real institutional
policies and clearly integrates
them into the analysis or
product.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Refers to real
institutional policies
and connects them to
the topic.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Uses vague or
generic references;
limited connection to
chosen institution.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Depth of Ethical
Leadership
Reasoning
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Strong ethical analysis
grounded in theory and
supported with appropriate
sources and biblical
integration.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Ethical analysis is
present with some
application of theory
and/or biblical
perspective.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Lacks theoretical
grounding or ethical
application; minimal
integration of biblical
support.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Structure,
Clarity, and
Professionalism
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Well-organized, polished
writing or presentation;
appropriate tone and
formatting for
academic/professional setting.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Generally organized
and appropriate in tone
and structure.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Disorganized,
informal, or
unprofessional format.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Citations and
Evidence
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses 5+ high-quality
scholarly/institutional sources
cited in APA style, integrated
effectively.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Uses minimum
required sources, cited
with mostly correct APA
style
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Inadequate source
use; poor citation
format or unsupported
claims.
0 pts
Not
Present
30 pts
Total Points: 150
Final Project Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI in
Higher Education Grading Rubric | EDUC759_D01_202620
**## Week4Part1Project.docx**
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI**
Karen Tillery
Liberty University
EDUC 759: Higher Education Leadership
Professor Dr Deanna Keith
April 19, 2026
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI**
**Strategic Brief- Interpreting SACSCOC Good practices.**
**Executive Summary**
Generative artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping teaching and learning across higher education. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC, 2025) has issued guidance emphasizing that institutions must preserve academic integrity, ensure faculty oversight, and maintain the credibility of student work in this evolving environment. For Fayetteville State University (FSU), this issue is especially important given its mission to promote student success, equity, and academic excellence.
Students are using generative AI tools like ChatGPT for tasks such as writing, researching, and solving problems. Research indicates that AI is transforming how students engage with knowledge production while also raising concerns about authorship, originality, and academic honesty (Holmes et al., 2019). While these tools offer meaningful opportunities to support learning, they also introduce risks related to academic dishonesty, inconsistent instructional practices, and inequitable access to technological resources. Without clear institutional guidance, these risks may undermine both academic standards and accreditation expectations (Kezar, 2018; SACSCOC, 2025).
The position of Chief Academic Officer (CAO), or Provost, plays a critical leadership role in guiding FSU’s strategic response to generative AI by strengthening institutional policy, supporting faculty development, and aligning academic practices with SACSCOC Good Practices (Kezar, 2018). Fayetteville State University demonstrates its commitment to academic integrity by embedding the principles of honesty, originality, and ethical scholarship into both student conduct expectations and the broader academic affairs process (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). Rather than functioning as a standalone policy, academic integrity at FSU integrates into the institutional culture, reinforcing accountability and responsible learning across all academic programs.
As part of the University of North Carolina System, FSU’s
_Ready for Tomorrow: Strategic Plan 2022–2027_ reflects a balanced approach that prioritizes ethics, innovation, and student success. The plan emphasizes access, academic excellence, and transformational leadership, while maintaining integrity as a core institutional value (Fayetteville State University, 2022). The alignment between ethical expectations and strategic priorities is supported by leadership perspectives from Dr. Roderick Heath, Assistant Vice Chancellor, and Dean of Students, who emphasized the importance of removing barriers to student success while maintaining high standards of accountability and personal responsibility (Heath, personal communication, 2026). His perspective highlights how integrity enforces through policy but also cultivated through leadership practices that support student development.
In addition, FSU’s emerging approach to artificial intelligence reflects its commitment to innovation while maintaining ethical safeguards. Institutions of higher education are increasingly integrating AI literacy and workforce readiness initiatives to prepare students for evolving technological environments (Holmes et al., 2019). At FSU, the use of AI is framed within ethical boundaries, ensuring that such tools enhance rather than replace student learning. This approach positions FSU as a forward-thinking historically Black college and university that is actively engaging innovation while preserving a strong ethical foundation. Together, these elements illustrate how FSU strategically aligns academic integrity, leadership, and technological advancement to support student success and institutional effectiveness.
**Role-Specific Responsibilities of the Chief Academic Officer**
The CAO, serving as Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at Fayetteville State University, plays a vital role in ensuring the academic integrity and quality of the institution. This role includes oversight of curriculum, faculty development, academic policy, and accreditation compliance (Kezar, 2018). In the context of generative AI, these responsibilities take on added importance.
As CAO, I must lead the development of clear, institution-wide expectations regarding AI use in academic work. This includes ensuring that policies are consistent across college and that faculty are equipped to communicate expectations effectively in their courses. The CAO is also responsible for promoting faculty development opportunities that help instructors redesign assignments, incorporate AI appropriately, and reduce opportunities for misuse (Holmes et al., 2019).
Additionally, the CAO must ensure that institutional practices align with SACSCOC expectations, particularly in areas such as student authentication, academic integrity, and faculty oversight (SACSCOC, 2025). This requires ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and coordination across academic units to maintain both rigor and compliance.
**Institutional Gap and Opportunity Analysis**
A review of institutional materials at FSU suggests that while academic integrity is strongly emphasized, guidance specific to generative AI remains limited. The university’s student conduct policies require students to complete their own work and avoid unauthorized assistance (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). However, these policies do not yet clearly address how generative AI fits within that framework.
Similarly, the Faculty Handbook outlines expectations for maintaining academic standards and ensuring the integrity of instruction (Fayetteville State University, n.d.), but it does not provide consistent guidance on how faculty should approach AI in the classroom. As a result, practices vary widely, with some instructors permitting AI use and others prohibiting it entirely. Research on institutional change suggests that inconsistent policy implementation can lead to confusion and reduced effectiveness of academic initiatives (Kezar, 2018).
There are also equity concerns to consider. Not all students have equal access to AI tools or the skills needed to use them effectively. Scholars note that emerging technologies can widen existing educational disparities if institutions do not intentionally address access and digital literacy (Holmes et al., 2019). Without intentional guidance, generative AI could widen existing gaps in academic performance.
At the same time, these challenges present an opportunity. By developing clear policies, providing structured guidance, and supporting faculty, FSU can position itself as a leader in ethical and innovative AI use while strengthening student learning and maintaining academic integrity (SACSCOC, 2025).
**Leadership Philosophy**
This approach is grounded in transformational leadership, which emphasizes vision, collaboration, and the ability to guide institutional change. Addressing generative AI requires more than policy development; it requires a shift in how faculty and students think about learning, authorship, and academic responsibility (Kezar, 2018).
The CAO must work to build a shared understanding of ethical AI use while empowering faculty to adapt their teaching practices. This includes fostering open dialogue, supporting innovation, and maintaining a strong commitment to academic integrity (Holmes et al., 2019).
This perspective is consistent with Proverbs 2:6: “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” This verse highlights the importance of wisdom and discernment, which are essential as institutions navigate the responsible use of emerging technologies.
**References**
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Faculty handbook_.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Student code of conduct_.
Fayetteville State University. (2022).
_Ready for tomorrow: Strategic plan 2022–2027_.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019).
_Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning_. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kezar, A. (2018).
_How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change_. Routledge.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025).
_Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence_.
**## Week4Part1Project.docx**
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI**
Karen Tillery
Liberty University
EDUC 759: Higher Education Leadership
Professor Dr Deanna Keith
April 19, 2026
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI**
**Strategic Brief- Interpreting SACSCOC Good practices.**
**Executive Summary**
Generative artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping teaching and learning across higher education. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC, 2025) has issued guidance emphasizing that institutions must preserve academic integrity, ensure faculty oversight, and maintain the credibility of student work in this evolving environment. For Fayetteville State University (FSU), this issue is especially important given its mission to promote student success, equity, and academic excellence.
Students are using generative AI tools like ChatGPT for tasks such as writing, researching, and solving problems. Research indicates that AI is transforming how students engage with knowledge production while also raising concerns about authorship, originality, and academic honesty (Holmes et al., 2019). While these tools offer meaningful opportunities to support learning, they also introduce risks related to academic dishonesty, inconsistent instructional practices, and inequitable access to technological resources. Without clear institutional guidance, these risks may undermine both academic standards and accreditation expectations (Kezar, 2018; SACSCOC, 2025).
The position of Chief Academic Officer (CAO), or Provost, plays a critical leadership role in guiding FSU’s strategic response to generative AI by strengthening institutional policy, supporting faculty development, and aligning academic practices with SACSCOC Good Practices (Kezar, 2018). Fayetteville State University demonstrates its commitment to academic integrity by embedding the principles of honesty, originality, and ethical scholarship into both student conduct expectations and the broader academic affairs process (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). Rather than functioning as a standalone policy, academic integrity at FSU integrates into the institutional culture, reinforcing accountability and responsible learning across all academic programs.
As part of the University of North Carolina System, FSU’s
_Ready for Tomorrow: Strategic Plan 2022–2027_ reflects a balanced approach that prioritizes ethics, innovation, and student success. The plan emphasizes access, academic excellence, and transformational leadership, while maintaining integrity as a core institutional value (Fayetteville State University, 2022). The alignment between ethical expectations and strategic priorities is supported by leadership perspectives from Dr. Roderick Heath, Assistant Vice Chancellor, and Dean of Students, who emphasized the importance of removing barriers to student success while maintaining high standards of accountability and personal responsibility (Heath, personal communication, 2026). His perspective highlights how integrity enforces through policy but also cultivated through leadership practices that support student development.
In addition, FSU’s emerging approach to artificial intelligence reflects its commitment to innovation while maintaining ethical safeguards. Institutions of higher education are increasingly integrating AI literacy and workforce readiness initiatives to prepare students for evolving technological environments (Holmes et al., 2019). At FSU, the use of AI is framed within ethical boundaries, ensuring that such tools enhance rather than replace student learning. This approach positions FSU as a forward-thinking historically Black college and university that is actively engaging innovation while preserving a strong ethical foundation. Together, these elements illustrate how FSU strategically aligns academic integrity, leadership, and technological advancement to support student success and institutional effectiveness.
**Role-Specific Responsibilities of the Chief Academic Officer**
The CAO, serving as Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at Fayetteville State University, plays a vital role in ensuring the academic integrity and quality of the institution. This role includes oversight of curriculum, faculty development, academic policy, and accreditation compliance (Kezar, 2018). In the context of generative AI, these responsibilities take on added importance.
As CAO, I must lead the development of clear, institution-wide expectations regarding AI use in academic work. This includes ensuring that policies are consistent across college and that faculty are equipped to communicate expectations effectively in their courses. The CAO is also responsible for promoting faculty development opportunities that help instructors redesign assignments, incorporate AI appropriately, and reduce opportunities for misuse (Holmes et al., 2019).
Additionally, the CAO must ensure that institutional practices align with SACSCOC expectations, particularly in areas such as student authentication, academic integrity, and faculty oversight (SACSCOC, 2025). This requires ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and coordination across academic units to maintain both rigor and compliance.
**Institutional Gap and Opportunity Analysis**
A review of institutional materials at FSU suggests that while academic integrity is strongly emphasized, guidance specific to generative AI remains limited. The university’s student conduct policies require students to complete their own work and avoid unauthorized assistance (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). However, these policies do not yet clearly address how generative AI fits within that framework.
Similarly, the Faculty Handbook outlines expectations for maintaining academic standards and ensuring the integrity of instruction (Fayetteville State University, n.d.), but it does not provide consistent guidance on how faculty should approach AI in the classroom. As a result, practices vary widely, with some instructors permitting AI use and others prohibiting it entirely. Research on institutional change suggests that inconsistent policy implementation can lead to confusion and reduced effectiveness of academic initiatives (Kezar, 2018).
There are also equity concerns to consider. Not all students have equal access to AI tools or the skills needed to use them effectively. Scholars note that emerging technologies can widen existing educational disparities if institutions do not intentionally address access and digital literacy (Holmes et al., 2019). Without intentional guidance, generative AI could widen existing gaps in academic performance.
At the same time, these challenges present an opportunity. By developing clear policies, providing structured guidance, and supporting faculty, FSU can position itself as a leader in ethical and innovative AI use while strengthening student learning and maintaining academic integrity (SACSCOC, 2025).
**Leadership Philosophy**
This approach is grounded in transformational leadership, which emphasizes vision, collaboration, and the ability to guide institutional change. Addressing generative AI requires more than policy development; it requires a shift in how faculty and students think about learning, authorship, and academic responsibility (Kezar, 2018).
The CAO must work to build a shared understanding of ethical AI use while empowering faculty to adapt their teaching practices. This includes fostering open dialogue, supporting innovation, and maintaining a strong commitment to academic integrity (Holmes et al., 2019).
This perspective is consistent with Proverbs 2:6: “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” This verse highlights the importance of wisdom and discernment, which are essential as institutions navigate the responsible use of emerging technologies.
**References**
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Faculty handbook_.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Student code of conduct_.
Fayetteville State University. (2022).
_Ready for tomorrow: Strategic plan 2022–2027_.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019).
_Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning_. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kezar, A. (2018).
_How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change_. Routledge.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025).
_Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence_.
**## homeworksuggesthelpinfo.docx**
Help and proofread my report, help with addressing all requirements per instruction. Keep in my voice and form. Need plagiarism and AI REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Institutional Selection Requirement
Before starting Part 1, select a real college or university (preferably SACSCOC-accredited) and
use it as your institutional context for all three parts of the final project.
You must:
• Reference the institution’s actual academic integrity policy, strategic plan, faculty Fayetteville state university in Fayetteville, NC
handbook, and/or AI guidelines (if available)
• Use institutional documents and web sources as part of your references (cite
appropriately)
• Apply the SACSCOC Good Practices in conjunction with your chosen institution’s
structure and needs
Part 1: Strategic Brief – Interpreting the SACSCOC Good Practices
Module: 4
Points: 150
Length: 4–6 pages
CLOs: A, F
Instructions
From your role as CAO, write a strategic leadership briefing that interprets the SACSCOC Good
Practices in the Use of Generative AI for your selected university. Your task is to assess your
institution’s readiness to respond and to define leadership priorities.
Your paper must include:
EDUC 759
Page 2 of 4
1. Executive Summary – A high-level summary of the SACSCOC guidance and why this
issue is critical for your institution
2. Role-Specific Responsibilities – Define the CAO’s leadership scope and how it connects
to AI governance, curriculum oversight, and faculty development
3. Institutional Gap and Opportunity Analysis – Identify 3–4 academic risk areas or
opportunities (e.g., syllabus language, inconsistent faculty practice, equity concerns),
referencing actual policies from your institution
4. Leadership Philosophy – Apply one ethical leadership theory (e.g., transformational,
adaptive) and one relevant Bible verse that informs your approach
5. APA-formatted references – Include scholarly sources, the SACSCOC Good Practices
document, and at least one institutional web-based source
Develop a balanced, enforceable academic integrity policy on the use of generative AI for your
Integrity, FERPA, Faculty Oversight)
• Quote or paraphrase relevant guidance with justification
EDUC 759
**## FinalProjectEthicalLeadershipandPolicyDevelopmentonAIinHigherEducationGradingRubric.pdf**
Criteria Ratings Points
Understanding
& Application of
SACSCOC
Good Practices
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Demonstrates comprehensive
understanding and applies
multiple relevant SACSCOC
guidelines directly and
accurately.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Demonstrates clear
understanding and
applies at least two
SACSCOC guidelines
effectively.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Limited or inaccurate
reference to
SACSCOC guidance;
lacks integration.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
present
30 pts
Institutional
Alignment
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses multiple real institutional
policies and clearly integrates
them into the analysis or
product.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Refers to real
institutional policies
and connects them to
the topic.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Uses vague or
generic references;
limited connection to
chosen institution.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Depth of Ethical
Leadership
Reasoning
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Strong ethical analysis
grounded in theory and
supported with appropriate
sources and biblical
integration.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Ethical analysis is
present with some
application of theory
and/or biblical
perspective.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Lacks theoretical
grounding or ethical
application; minimal
integration of biblical
support.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Structure,
Clarity, and
Professionalism
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Well-organized, polished
writing or presentation;
appropriate tone and
formatting for
academic/professional setting.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Generally organized
and appropriate in tone
and structure.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Disorganized,
informal, or
unprofessional format.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Citations and
Evidence
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses 5+ high-quality
scholarly/institutional sources
cited in APA style, integrated
effectively.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Uses minimum
required sources, cited
with mostly correct APA
style
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Inadequate source
use; poor citation
format or unsupported
claims.
0 pts
Not
Present
30 pts
Total Points: 150
Final Project Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI in
Higher Education Grading Rubric | EDUC759_D01_202620
**## Week4Part1Project.docx**
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI**
Karen Tillery
Liberty University
EDUC 759: Higher Education Leadership
Professor Dr Deanna Keith
April 19, 2026
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI**
**Strategic Brief- Interpreting SACSCOC Good practices.**
**Executive Summary**
Generative artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping teaching and learning across higher education. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC, 2025) has issued guidance emphasizing that institutions must preserve academic integrity, ensure faculty oversight, and maintain the credibility of student work in this evolving environment. For Fayetteville State University (FSU), this issue is especially important given its mission to promote student success, equity, and academic excellence.
Students are using generative AI tools like ChatGPT for tasks such as writing, researching, and solving problems. Research indicates that AI is transforming how students engage with knowledge production while also raising concerns about authorship, originality, and academic honesty (Holmes et al., 2019). While these tools offer meaningful opportunities to support learning, they also introduce risks related to academic dishonesty, inconsistent instructional practices, and inequitable access to technological resources. Without clear institutional guidance, these risks may undermine both academic standards and accreditation expectations (Kezar, 2018; SACSCOC, 2025).
The position of Chief Academic Officer (CAO), or Provost, plays a critical leadership role in guiding FSU’s strategic response to generative AI by strengthening institutional policy, supporting faculty development, and aligning academic practices with SACSCOC Good Practices (Kezar, 2018). Fayetteville State University demonstrates its commitment to academic integrity by embedding the principles of honesty, originality, and ethical scholarship into both student conduct expectations and the broader academic affairs process (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). Rather than functioning as a standalone policy, academic integrity at FSU integrates into the institutional culture, reinforcing accountability and responsible learning across all academic programs.
As part of the University of North Carolina System, FSU’s
_Ready for Tomorrow: Strategic Plan 2022–2027_ reflects a balanced approach that prioritizes ethics, innovation, and student success. The plan emphasizes access, academic excellence, and transformational leadership, while maintaining integrity as a core institutional value (Fayetteville State University, 2022). The alignment between ethical expectations and strategic priorities is supported by leadership perspectives from Dr. Roderick Heath, Assistant Vice Chancellor, and Dean of Students, who emphasized the importance of removing barriers to student success while maintaining high standards of accountability and personal responsibility (Heath, personal communication, 2026). His perspective highlights how integrity enforces through policy but also cultivated through leadership practices that support student development.
In addition, FSU’s emerging approach to artificial intelligence reflects its commitment to innovation while maintaining ethical safeguards. Institutions of higher education are increasingly integrating AI literacy and workforce readiness initiatives to prepare students for evolving technological environments (Holmes et al., 2019). At FSU, the use of AI is framed within ethical boundaries, ensuring that such tools enhance rather than replace student learning. This approach positions FSU as a forward-thinking historically Black college and university that is actively engaging innovation while preserving a strong ethical foundation. Together, these elements illustrate how FSU strategically aligns academic integrity, leadership, and technological advancement to support student success and institutional effectiveness.
**Role-Specific Responsibilities of the Chief Academic Officer**
The CAO, serving as Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at Fayetteville State University, plays a vital role in ensuring the academic integrity and quality of the institution. This role includes oversight of curriculum, faculty development, academic policy, and accreditation compliance (Kezar, 2018). In the context of generative AI, these responsibilities take on added importance.
As CAO, I must lead the development of clear, institution-wide expectations regarding AI use in academic work. This includes ensuring that policies are consistent across college and that faculty are equipped to communicate expectations effectively in their courses. The CAO is also responsible for promoting faculty development opportunities that help instructors redesign assignments, incorporate AI appropriately, and reduce opportunities for misuse (Holmes et al., 2019).
Additionally, the CAO must ensure that institutional practices align with SACSCOC expectations, particularly in areas such as student authentication, academic integrity, and faculty oversight (SACSCOC, 2025). This requires ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and coordination across academic units to maintain both rigor and compliance.
**Institutional Gap and Opportunity Analysis**
A review of institutional materials at FSU suggests that while academic integrity is strongly emphasized, guidance specific to generative AI remains limited. The university’s student conduct policies require students to complete their own work and avoid unauthorized assistance (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). However, these policies do not yet clearly address how generative AI fits within that framework.
Similarly, the Faculty Handbook outlines expectations for maintaining academic standards and ensuring the integrity of instruction (Fayetteville State University, n.d.), but it does not provide consistent guidance on how faculty should approach AI in the classroom. As a result, practices vary widely, with some instructors permitting AI use and others prohibiting it entirely. Research on institutional change suggests that inconsistent policy implementation can lead to confusion and reduced effectiveness of academic initiatives (Kezar, 2018).
There are also equity concerns to consider. Not all students have equal access to AI tools or the skills needed to use them effectively. Scholars note that emerging technologies can widen existing educational disparities if institutions do not intentionally address access and digital literacy (Holmes et al., 2019). Without intentional guidance, generative AI could widen existing gaps in academic performance.
At the same time, these challenges present an opportunity. By developing clear policies, providing structured guidance, and supporting faculty, FSU can position itself as a leader in ethical and innovative AI use while strengthening student learning and maintaining academic integrity (SACSCOC, 2025).
**Leadership Philosophy**
This approach is grounded in transformational leadership, which emphasizes vision, collaboration, and the ability to guide institutional change. Addressing generative AI requires more than policy development; it requires a shift in how faculty and students think about learning, authorship, and academic responsibility (Kezar, 2018).
The CAO must work to build a shared understanding of ethical AI use while empowering faculty to adapt their teaching practices. This includes fostering open dialogue, supporting innovation, and maintaining a strong commitment to academic integrity (Holmes et al., 2019).
This perspective is consistent with Proverbs 2:6: “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” This verse highlights the importance of wisdom and discernment, which are essential as institutions navigate the responsible use of emerging technologies.
**References**
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Faculty handbook_.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Student code of conduct_.
Fayetteville State University. (2022).
_Ready for tomorrow: Strategic plan 2022–2027_.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019).
_Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning_. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kezar, A. (2018).
_How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change_. Routledge.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025).
_Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence_.
**## homeworksuggesthelpinfo.docx**
Help and proofread my report, help with addressing all requirements per instruction. Keep in my voice and form. Need plagiarism and AI REPORT
INSTRUCTIONS
Institutional Selection Requirement
Before starting Part 1, select a real college or university (preferably SACSCOC-accredited) and
use it as your institutional context for all three parts of the final project.
You must:
• Reference the institution’s actual academic integrity policy, strategic plan, faculty Fayetteville state university in Fayetteville, NC
handbook, and/or AI guidelines (if available)
• Use institutional documents and web sources as part of your references (cite
appropriately)
• Apply the SACSCOC Good Practices in conjunction with your chosen institution’s
structure and needs
Part 1: Strategic Brief – Interpreting the SACSCOC Good Practices
Module: 4
Points: 150
Length: 4–6 pages
CLOs: A, F
Instructions
From your role as CAO, write a strategic leadership briefing that interprets the SACSCOC Good
Practices in the Use of Generative AI for your selected university. Your task is to assess your
institution’s readiness to respond and to define leadership priorities.
Your paper must include:
EDUC 759
Page 2 of 4
1. Executive Summary – A high-level summary of the SACSCOC guidance and why this
issue is critical for your institution
2. Role-Specific Responsibilities – Define the CAO’s leadership scope and how it connects
to AI governance, curriculum oversight, and faculty development
3. Institutional Gap and Opportunity Analysis – Identify 3–4 academic risk areas or
opportunities (e.g., syllabus language, inconsistent faculty practice, equity concerns),
referencing actual policies from your institution
4. Leadership Philosophy – Apply one ethical leadership theory (e.g., transformational,
adaptive) and one relevant Bible verse that informs your approach
5. APA-formatted references – Include scholarly sources, the SACSCOC Good Practices
document, and at least one institutional web-based source
Develop a balanced, enforceable academic integrity policy on the use of generative AI for your
Integrity, FERPA, Faculty Oversight)
• Quote or paraphrase relevant guidance with justification
EDUC 759
**## FinalProjectEthicalLeadershipandPolicyDevelopmentonAIinHigherEducationGradingRubric.pdf**
Criteria Ratings Points
Understanding
& Application of
SACSCOC
Good Practices
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Demonstrates comprehensive
understanding and applies
multiple relevant SACSCOC
guidelines directly and
accurately.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Demonstrates clear
understanding and
applies at least two
SACSCOC guidelines
effectively.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Limited or inaccurate
reference to
SACSCOC guidance;
lacks integration.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
present
30 pts
Institutional
Alignment
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses multiple real institutional
policies and clearly integrates
them into the analysis or
product.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Refers to real
institutional policies
and connects them to
the topic.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Uses vague or
generic references;
limited connection to
chosen institution.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Depth of Ethical
Leadership
Reasoning
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Strong ethical analysis
grounded in theory and
supported with appropriate
sources and biblical
integration.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Ethical analysis is
present with some
application of theory
and/or biblical
perspective.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Lacks theoretical
grounding or ethical
application; minimal
integration of biblical
support.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Structure,
Clarity, and
Professionalism
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Well-organized, polished
writing or presentation;
appropriate tone and
formatting for
academic/professional setting.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Generally organized
and appropriate in tone
and structure.
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Disorganized,
informal, or
unprofessional format.
0 pts
Not
Present
Not
Present
30 pts
Citations and
Evidence
30 to >27 pts
Advanced
Uses 5+ high-quality
scholarly/institutional sources
cited in APA style, integrated
effectively.
27 to >24 pts
Proficient
Uses minimum
required sources, cited
with mostly correct APA
style
24 to >0 pts
Developing
Inadequate source
use; poor citation
format or unsupported
claims.
0 pts
Not
Present
30 pts
Total Points: 150
Final Project Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI in
Higher Education Grading Rubric | EDUC759_D01_202620
**## Week4Part1Project.docx**
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI**
Karen Tillery
Liberty University
EDUC 759: Higher Education Leadership
Professor Dr Deanna Keith
April 19, 2026
**Final Project: Ethical Leadership and Policy Development on AI**
**Strategic Brief- Interpreting SACSCOC Good practices.**
**Executive Summary**
Generative artificial intelligence is rapidly reshaping teaching and learning across higher education. The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC, 2025) has issued guidance emphasizing that institutions must preserve academic integrity, ensure faculty oversight, and maintain the credibility of student work in this evolving environment. For Fayetteville State University (FSU), this issue is especially important given its mission to promote student success, equity, and academic excellence.
Students are using generative AI tools like ChatGPT for tasks such as writing, researching, and solving problems. Research indicates that AI is transforming how students engage with knowledge production while also raising concerns about authorship, originality, and academic honesty (Holmes et al., 2019). While these tools offer meaningful opportunities to support learning, they also introduce risks related to academic dishonesty, inconsistent instructional practices, and inequitable access to technological resources. Without clear institutional guidance, these risks may undermine both academic standards and accreditation expectations (Kezar, 2018; SACSCOC, 2025).
The position of Chief Academic Officer (CAO), or Provost, plays a critical leadership role in guiding FSU’s strategic response to generative AI by strengthening institutional policy, supporting faculty development, and aligning academic practices with SACSCOC Good Practices (Kezar, 2018). Fayetteville State University demonstrates its commitment to academic integrity by embedding the principles of honesty, originality, and ethical scholarship into both student conduct expectations and the broader academic affairs process (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). Rather than functioning as a standalone policy, academic integrity at FSU integrates into the institutional culture, reinforcing accountability and responsible learning across all academic programs.
As part of the University of North Carolina System, FSU’s
_Ready for Tomorrow: Strategic Plan 2022–2027_ reflects a balanced approach that prioritizes ethics, innovation, and student success. The plan emphasizes access, academic excellence, and transformational leadership, while maintaining integrity as a core institutional value (Fayetteville State University, 2022). The alignment between ethical expectations and strategic priorities is supported by leadership perspectives from Dr. Roderick Heath, Assistant Vice Chancellor, and Dean of Students, who emphasized the importance of removing barriers to student success while maintaining high standards of accountability and personal responsibility (Heath, personal communication, 2026). His perspective highlights how integrity enforces through policy but also cultivated through leadership practices that support student development.
In addition, FSU’s emerging approach to artificial intelligence reflects its commitment to innovation while maintaining ethical safeguards. Institutions of higher education are increasingly integrating AI literacy and workforce readiness initiatives to prepare students for evolving technological environments (Holmes et al., 2019). At FSU, the use of AI is framed within ethical boundaries, ensuring that such tools enhance rather than replace student learning. This approach positions FSU as a forward-thinking historically Black college and university that is actively engaging innovation while preserving a strong ethical foundation. Together, these elements illustrate how FSU strategically aligns academic integrity, leadership, and technological advancement to support student success and institutional effectiveness.
**Role-Specific Responsibilities of the Chief Academic Officer**
The CAO, serving as Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at Fayetteville State University, plays a vital role in ensuring the academic integrity and quality of the institution. This role includes oversight of curriculum, faculty development, academic policy, and accreditation compliance (Kezar, 2018). In the context of generative AI, these responsibilities take on added importance.
As CAO, I must lead the development of clear, institution-wide expectations regarding AI use in academic work. This includes ensuring that policies are consistent across college and that faculty are equipped to communicate expectations effectively in their courses. The CAO is also responsible for promoting faculty development opportunities that help instructors redesign assignments, incorporate AI appropriately, and reduce opportunities for misuse (Holmes et al., 2019).
Additionally, the CAO must ensure that institutional practices align with SACSCOC expectations, particularly in areas such as student authentication, academic integrity, and faculty oversight (SACSCOC, 2025). This requires ongoing monitoring, evaluation, and coordination across academic units to maintain both rigor and compliance.
**Institutional Gap and Opportunity Analysis**
A review of institutional materials at FSU suggests that while academic integrity is strongly emphasized, guidance specific to generative AI remains limited. The university’s student conduct policies require students to complete their own work and avoid unauthorized assistance (Fayetteville State University, n.d.). However, these policies do not yet clearly address how generative AI fits within that framework.
Similarly, the Faculty Handbook outlines expectations for maintaining academic standards and ensuring the integrity of instruction (Fayetteville State University, n.d.), but it does not provide consistent guidance on how faculty should approach AI in the classroom. As a result, practices vary widely, with some instructors permitting AI use and others prohibiting it entirely. Research on institutional change suggests that inconsistent policy implementation can lead to confusion and reduced effectiveness of academic initiatives (Kezar, 2018).
There are also equity concerns to consider. Not all students have equal access to AI tools or the skills needed to use them effectively. Scholars note that emerging technologies can widen existing educational disparities if institutions do not intentionally address access and digital literacy (Holmes et al., 2019). Without intentional guidance, generative AI could widen existing gaps in academic performance.
At the same time, these challenges present an opportunity. By developing clear policies, providing structured guidance, and supporting faculty, FSU can position itself as a leader in ethical and innovative AI use while strengthening student learning and maintaining academic integrity (SACSCOC, 2025).
**Leadership Philosophy**
This approach is grounded in transformational leadership, which emphasizes vision, collaboration, and the ability to guide institutional change. Addressing generative AI requires more than policy development; it requires a shift in how faculty and students think about learning, authorship, and academic responsibility (Kezar, 2018).
The CAO must work to build a shared understanding of ethical AI use while empowering faculty to adapt their teaching practices. This includes fostering open dialogue, supporting innovation, and maintaining a strong commitment to academic integrity (Holmes et al., 2019).
This perspective is consistent with Proverbs 2:6: “For the Lord gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.” This verse highlights the importance of wisdom and discernment, which are essential as institutions navigate the responsible use of emerging technologies.
**References**
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Faculty handbook_.
Fayetteville State University. (n.d.).
_Student code of conduct_.
Fayetteville State University. (2022).
_Ready for tomorrow: Strategic plan 2022–2027_.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019).
_Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning_. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
Kezar, A. (2018).
_How colleges change: Understanding, leading, and enacting change_. Routledge.
Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. (2025).
_Good practices in the use of generative artificial intelligence_.