Only 18 of Harvard College’s 50 concentrations have department-wide restrictions on how seniors can use artificial intelligence in their theses, according to a Crimson review of departmental policies.
With no College-wide policy on AI usage in theses, the rules vary widely by concentration. Six concentrations ban AI use at all stages of the thesis process, while 10 allow thesis writers to use it for research or data analysis but not for writing.
More often, though, departments have not set a concentration-wide rule at all. Seventeen concentrations leave the question to students and their thesis advisers to work out individually,and leaders of 14 others said they are still developing policies.
The Crimson identified thesis policies for 49 of the College’s 50 concentrations by reviewing departmental websites, Canvas pages, and handouts and speaking with more than a dozen department leaders and senior concentrators. Theater, Dance, and Media Chair Derek Miller declined to comment on the department’s policy.
The findings offer a window into how faculty are responding to students’ growing use of AI — and how they are regulating it in the most ambitious and time-intensive project many undergraduates will undertake.
Where AI is allowed in a Harvard thesis
‘+
‘
- ‘+c[2].map(esc).join(‘
- ‘)+’
Dean of Undergraduate Education Amanda Claybaugh said in an interview that each discipline should set its own policy on AI in theses, reflecting how the technology is used by professionals in that field.
“My own thought, although I would be eager to hear what my colleagues think, is that the senior thesis is the first opportunity for students to do original research in a discipline, and so the policy governing the thesis should reflect the appropriate use of AI in that discipline,” she said.
“If senior researchers are using AI to do data analysis, then it makes sense to allow undergrads to use AI to do data analysis in their senior thesis,” she added.
The Crimson’s review found that complete bans are concentrated in the Arts and Humanities and Social Sciences divisions. None of the concentrations in the Science Division or the School of Engineering and Applied Sciences have banned the technology entirely.
A Split in the Social Sciences
Get The Crimson in your inbox.
In the Social Sciences Division, Government, Social Studies, and Studies of Women, Gender, and Sexuality ban AI usage in all stages of the thesis process, while Economics allows limited use.
Social Studies and WGS both allow students to apply for exceptions, which department leadership must approve. WGS grants them only in limited cases involving data analysis. Social Studies does not restrict what students can request an exception for, but its website says each request will be decided case by case.
The Social Studies policy, which took effect this year and is posted on the concentration’s website, lists possible penalties for violations, ranging from grade deductions to referral to the Honor Council.
Last semester, Charles Clavey, the instructor of Social Studies 60: “Making Sense of Methods for Theoretical and Historical Research,” told students in a Canvas announcement that he had found AI-generated work produced by students in the course.
“It has come to our attention, however, that a number of papers were written either partially or entirely by generative AI. This is extremely disappointing; it is a disservice to yourselves and disrespectful to your peers and to us,” Clavey wrote in the announcement.
“Using generative AI makes a mockery of our commitment to teaching and mentorship and the spirit of academic inquiry,” he added.
Clavey and Social Studies Director of Undergraduate Studies Chris Rominger did not respond to requests for comment.
Social Studies concentrator Sydney C. Black ’27 said she supports the policy, arguing that it protects students from the uncertain effects of AI on how they think.
“I think leaning towards a more restrictive view is appropriate because we simply just do not know enough yet about how artificial intelligence will affect the way we think,” she said. “The evidence we do have suggests it’ll be extremely bad.”
Vikram M. Kolli ’27, also a Social Studies concentrator, said he found the policy frustrating.
“Having a completely zero tolerance, no AI policy is preventing students from succeeding when they graduate college,” he said.
The Economics department takes a different approach. It permits AI use for research and analysis but bars it from the writing itself, and it requires students to disclose in an appendix how they used the technology.
Economics Director of Undergraduate Studies Jeffrey A. Miron said he expects the policy to change as the technology does.
“The crucial thing that we are sort of trying to emphasize in our policy is to be forthcoming, to be clear about what part was done with AI and what part not done,” Miron said.
Miron said AI has a place in parts of the thesis process, but that he does not believe it can replace the bulk of students’ work.
“We certainly recognize that doing some things using AI tools makes perfect sense through literature reviews, some coding tasks, etc. But we want there to be serious thinking, done independent of AI,” Miron said.
“The crucial question in a huge fraction of undergraduate theses of economics research more generally, or social science research more generally, is whether you can address correlation versus causation, and AI doesn’t really help you with that,” he added.
Bans and Pending Policies in the Humanities
Three of the six concentrations that ban AI usage completely in the thesis process — from research to writing — are in the Arts and Humanities Division: History and Literature, Philosophy and Slavic Languages and Literatures.
Philosophy concentrator Sofia E. Mikulasek ’27 said using AI in research and writing strips away the most important parts of doing philosophy.
“Using AI is not thinking,” Mikulasek said. “That needs to be something that you yourself do.”
But most humanities concentrations — 13 of 18 — have not yet settled on a policy.
Kyler Hoogendoorn-Ecker ’27, a joint concentrator in Comparative Literature and Germanic Languages and Literatures, said he hopes smaller departments in particular will offer clearer guidance.
“Small departments, it seems to me, have relied on a hopefulness that they can work out arrangements on a personal, individual level with their students and not have to announce formalized policies for AI usage, which I think is not a sustainable system at all,” he said.
“I think it is the responsibility of small departments to write formalized policies and announce those very clearly to their students,” he added.
Germanic Languages and Literatures professor John T. Hamilton wrote that the department had discussed AI at recent faculty meetings, examining its use in both senior theses and doctoral dissertations.
”We are currently working on formulating an explicit policy, which we will promptly publish on our department website and through other pertinent avenues,” Hamilton wrote.
Adviser Discretion in the Sciences
Most concentrations in the Science Division leave AI use to students’ individual thesis advisers.
That policy, for instance, applies to all Engineering students pursuing an S.B., a degree that requires a thesis. Regardless of their field, S.B. candidates enroll in the same thesis course, “ENG-SCI 100HF,” which permits AI use at the discretion of students’ advisers.
Some SEAS concentrations are going further and preparing students to use AI in their research.
Applied Mathematics — which requires thesis writers to work out individual guidelines on AI use with their advisers — also recommends that students writing modeling-based theses take Applied Mathematics 115: “Mathematical Modeling,” which requires students to use AI in coursework.
“In Fall 2026, thesis students who are pursuing a thesis that involves modeling should strongly consider taking APMTH 115 to gain knowledge of how generative AI is used in mathematical modeling,” the Canvas page for the concentration’s thesis course reads.
Several department leaders defended their decision not to adopt a formal policy, arguing that research practices vary too much, even within a single concentration, for one rule to fit every thesis.
Integrative Biology Assistant Head Tutor Andrew J. Berry wrote in an email that a single policy would not fit a concentration whose students write theses across many areas of biology.
“IB doesn’t have a published policy because we expect students and their direct mentors to address these issues as appropriate within the broad guidelines of the Honor Code,” he wrote. “IB students write theses in a wide range of biological sub-disciplines, and AI practices may differ from one area to another.”
—Staff writer Sebastian B. Connolly can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal at sbc.23. Follow him on X@SebastianC4784.
—Staff writer Summer E. Rose can be reached at [email protected] or on Signal at ser.85. Follow her on X@summerellenrose.
