Machiavelli is one of the most heavily summarized authors on the internet, which means a chatbot can produce a plausible essay on The Discourses in seconds. Teachers assigning these essays have noticed that generic, polished, but strangely empty responses are becoming more common. A clear AI use policy is now part of designing the assignment, not an afterthought.

Start by deciding what you actually want to allow. Some teachers permit AI for brainstorming or checking grammar but not for drafting arguments, while others ban it entirely for take-home essays. Whatever you choose, write it down in the assignment sheet in plain language, because students given vague guidance will interpret it in whichever way suits them.

Explain the reasoning behind your policy. Students are more likely to comply when they understand that the goal of a Machiavelli essay is to practice reading closely and building an argument, not to produce a file. If the point is the thinking, then outsourcing the thinking defeats the purpose, and most students can see that when it is stated honestly.

Spell out permitted and prohibited uses

A useful policy lists specific examples of each category. Asking an AI to explain the difference between a principality and a republic might be fine, while asking it to write a body paragraph on Discourses I.4 is not. Concrete examples remove the gray area and reduce the number of student questions you will field the night before the deadline.

• Allowed: asking for a plain-language explanation of a difficult passage, with the source still read directly
• Allowed: checking grammar and spelling after the student has written the draft
• Not allowed: generating thesis statements, body paragraphs, or full drafts
• Required: disclosing any AI tool used and describing how it was used
• Required: keeping notes and drafts that show how the argument developed

Design assignments that are harder to outsource

Prompts that tie directly to class discussion, specific chapters, or in-class activities are harder for generic tools to answer well. Asking students to respond to an argument made by a classmate, or to analyze a passage you distributed on paper, anchors the essay in the shared classroom. Process-based grading, including outlines and annotated drafts, also makes it easier to see a student's real thinking.

Short in-class writing offers another useful data point. A 20-minute response on a chapter gives you a baseline of each student's voice and level of understanding. When a later take-home essay is dramatically different, you have a reasonable basis for a conversation, not an accusation.

Handle suspected misuse with care

AI detection tools are unreliable and can produce false positives, so they should not be the sole basis for any accusation. A better approach is a conversation in which the student explains their argument and shows their notes. Students who wrote the essay can usually discuss it fluently, and those who did not often struggle to explain basic choices.

Be consistent and document the process, especially if your school has formal academic integrity procedures. Following the same steps for every student protects both fairness and your own credibility. Treat each case as an opportunity to clarify the policy, not only to enforce it.

Revisit the policy each term

AI tools change quickly, and a policy written two years ago may no longer match what students can do. Review your language each semester, ask students what they have seen, and adjust. Inviting student input during the first week often produces rules that feel fairer and are therefore easier to enforce.

Teachers who use AI for their own work, such as drafting feedback comments from a rubric, can model the transparency they expect. Explaining that you review every comment and remain responsible for the grade shows students what responsible use looks like. That openness builds trust and strengthens the case for thoughtful, limited use.