SINGAPORE: Another Nanyang Technological University (NTU) student involved in a Generative AI (GenAI)-related academic misconduct case has come forward, revealing a different outcome from that of a peer who was recently cleared by the university.
On 22 June, NTU stated that three students had received zero marks for a written assignment in a health and politics module after being found to have used GenAI tools in their submissions.
The essays were flagged due to fictitious statistics, non-existent academic references, and broken web links. The university’s investigation began in April, and students were informed of the outcome in early May.
On 24 June, one of the affected students shared on Reddit that she had finally received a fair hearing. The panel concluded that the student’s work did not involve the use of GenAI.
While her appeal for a grade review remains ongoing, she was effectively cleared of wrongdoing.
However, another student involved in the same case posted on Reddit on 26 June, stating that their appeal had been rejected following a panel hearing held on 25 June.
Student Alleges Being Penalised for Transparency
The student alleged that NTU’s decision ignored the original accusation made by Associate Professor Sabrina Luk — that the student had used fake citations in their essay — and instead focused on their admitted use of ChatGPT for preliminary background research.
According to the student, when the case first began, Professor Luk asked whether they had used AI in writing the essay.
The student stated that they immediately responded, saying they had not used it in writing, but had consulted ChatGPT while still deciding on a topic, asking five broad, general questions.
None of the AI-generated responses were used in the submitted essay.
The student described the AI use as similar to using a search engine for general background information and said the panel had access to both their chat history and the essay, confirming there was no overlap.
Despite this, the student claimed that Professor Chia Wai Mun expressed disapproval over any use of AI in the research process, arguing that it contradicted the instruction to avoid using AI in the “generation of the essay”.
The student argued that this instruction was vague and open to interpretation.
Most students, they said, would assume that AI was not allowed during the writing phase, but not necessarily during preliminary research.
They also pointed out that it is standard practice for professors to issue an Academic Integrity form to clarify AI restrictions — something that was not provided in this case.
“She expected us to infer that AI cannot be used even for minuscule questions from this one line. And from this one line, she’s jeopardised everything I’ve worked 21 years for,” the student wrote.
They added that their use of ChatGPT would not have been detected had they not voluntarily disclosed it, believing they had acted ethically.
“Every word of my 3,000-word essay was written by me.”
Honesty Allegedly Led to Rejection
The student further claimed that when they questioned Professor Chia about being penalised for minor AI use while other students may have done the same, the professor replied: “I’m not faulting everyone, I’m faulting you.”
The student said this reinforced the view that they were being punished for transparency rather than for any actual breach of academic standards.
“My takeaway is that honesty is not the best policy. I was punished for being forthcoming — not because I lapsed in integrity.”
They concluded their post by warning others to avoid being honest in similar circumstances, stating that NTU was not fostering a culture of honesty, integrity, and growth — but rather, the opposite.
Netizens Question NTU’s Reasoning
The post sparked widespread discussion, with many netizens expressing scepticism about the university’s stance.
Several questioned the difference between using ChatGPT for background research and using Google — especially now that the search engine includes AI-generated summaries via its “AI Overview” feature.
“Shouldn’t NTU penalise those who used Google to search for sources? Since Google now has an AI summary feature?” one user asked.
Another criticised what they saw as an overly cautious attitude toward technological tools.
“Why are they so scared of technology? It takes more than ChatGPT to write a coherent, well-researched, and thoughtful essay. Do they seriously think AI can write good, accurate and logical essays with added insight?”
One user suggested the decision was more symbolic than procedural. “This is not justice. This is NTU trying to make an example out of you, to warn other students not to use GenAI,” they commented.
Some users speculated that NTU may prefer students to rely solely on traditional methods, such as reading physical books in the library.
However, this expectation was seen as out of touch with present-day academic realities.
“How on earth are we going to find actual information from books published years ago and still relevant to today’s essay questions, in the tech world we’re living in?” one user questioned.
Another expressed disappointment that NTU appeared to prioritise rigid rule enforcement over educational intent.
“Not accepting an AI-generated essay is totally valid, as the point is to have students write the essay. But everything else is nonsense,” they wrote.
They added that what NTU is pushing appears counterproductive to what students are expected to do when they enter the workforce.
The post NTU student’s GenAI appeal rejected; claims penalised for disclosing AI use appeared first on The Online Citizen.
