Artificial Intelligence Use Policy
Universidad Católica Digital de Guadalupe (UCA Guadalupe) · Campus IACampus
Promoting entity: Asociación Privada de fieles Gaudium de Veritate (Toledo, Spain), developed by Instituto Santo Tomás de Educación y Familia S.L. (Pozuelo de Alarcón - Madrid - Spain)
Approved by the promoting entity on September 5, 2026. It is
written based on what the platform does; each commitment in this document corresponds to a mechanism that exists in the code, is auditable, and can be verified.Review: annually, and whenever the use or regulations of AI change or a new degree programme comes into service.
1. Why this university has an AI policy
Because it uses artificial intelligence to create, assist, and transmit knowledge. This policy exists so that anyone
—student, professor, academic authority, or public authority— can know what AI does here, what it never does, and whom to turn to.
Three commitments bind us:
- The Magisterium of the Church on artificial intelligence, and in
particular the encyclical letter Magnifica Humanitas of Pope Leo XIV
(May 15, 2026), on the custody of the human person in the time
of artificial intelligence. For us, it is not an ornamental
reference; it is the criterion by which what we do is judged. - The principles of the Rome Call for AI Ethics (romecall.org, February
28, 2020): transparency, inclusion, responsibility,
impartiality, reliability, and security and privacy. We follow its
principles; formal adherence is in progress. - European and international regulations: especially the Artificial Intelligence Regulation
(AI Act) and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
And a conviction of our own: the person is the end of this university, never the means. A technology that treats the student as an object —of surveillance, measurement, or optimization— is out of place here even if it were legal and even if it worked. People above technology.
Magnifica Humanitas and this campus
Leo XIV signed this encyclical on the 135th anniversary of Rerum Novarum,
and that continuity is not coincidental: the question of the machine and work that
Leo XIII opened returns today as the question of the machine and the person. For
a university built on the Social Doctrine of the Church, that is its
natural place.
From its teaching we retain three things that have direct technical consequence
on this campus, and not only intention:
- Artificial intelligence is not morally neutral. Whoever deploys it
is responsible for it. That is why this policy exists, why each generated
artifact records which model it was made with, and why publishing any
content requires the authorization of a person. - The machine does not live what it imitates. It can reproduce language and
the processes of thought, but it does not love, does not suffer, has no moral
conscience, nor does it know from within friendship, work, or responsibility.
Hence, here no AI grades what counts toward a degree,
none decides alone what is published, and none serves as a spiritual
companion to the student: the student is listened to and referred to a person. - The educational alliance for the digital age. The school and the
university are not spectators of technical change, but the place where
one is educated to live it. We teach with artificial intelligence and we teach
about it, with the same criterion.
Official text: vatican.va, Magnifica Humanitas (May 15, 2026).
The six principles of the Rome Call, and where they are in the code
UCA Guadalupe commits to subscribing to and implementing the six principles of the Rome Call:
| Principle | How it is fulfilled here |
|---|---|
| Transparency | The entire community is informed of the use and scope of artificial intelligence on the Campus. Every student-facing AI is labeled as such, and the assistant must declare itself artificial if asked. Each correction, each piece of content, and each response records which provider and which model generated them, and on what date. |
| Inclusion | The entire campus operates in Spanish, English, and Chinese, and in other languages, with translation done by the platform itself so that language does not decide or limit who can study. Additionally, the entire platform is "responsive" to adapt as much as possible to the student. |
| Responsibility | In important matters, human approval. No publication occurs without a person approving it, and who that was is recorded. The issuance of a degree requires two different people: the one who approves it and the one who issues it. |
| Impartiality | Automatic correction is formative and does not count toward the degree. Any student can appeal a correction from the very screen where they receive it, and a person responds in writing within a committed timeframe. |
| Reliability | No content reaches the student without passing a quality bar and the review of a coordinator; statements about faith, morals, or doctrine are additionally flagged for theological review by a person. The prompts expressly prohibit inventing quotes and sources; the use of two antagonistic AI models improves the reliability of the proposal. |
| Security and privacy | Conversation history is kept for a limited time and purged automatically. Records that the law requires to be kept are stored separately and do not contain the student's conversation. The platform complies with the most demanding privacy and security standards. |
2. What we use AI for
| Use | What it does | Who decides |
|---|---|---|
| Writing content | Drafts lessons based on material provided by the faculty | A professor or coordinator approves before publishing. Without that approval, nothing reaches the student |
| Correcting exercises | Evaluates answers and provides feedback | It is formative: it guides the student and does not determine the final grade |
| Proposing learning paths | Suggests a formative route based on what the student is looking for | The student accepts, changes, or rejects. Core training is imposed by the university, not by the model |
| Accompanying | Lesson assistant, Disputatio Master, TFG tutor | They guide; they may propose grades for a human to grade |
| Translating | Translates content into the campus languages | Reviewable by the faculty |
| Reading aloud | Synthetic voice of content to improve accessibility | — |
3. What AI never decides
This is the central commitment, and it is not a promise of conduct; this is how
the platform is built.
- No grade that counts is set by an AI. Automatic correction
is formative and orientative; the instructor grades. The degree is obtained through completed lessons and,
when applicable, through a Final Degree Project reviewed by a person. - No degree is issued automatically. A coordinator approves and an
administrator issues: two different people. - No content is published without a instructor approving it.
- No learning path leaves out the common training of the university: the
server inserts it, regardless of what the model proposes or what the student prefers.
Legal consequence of the above: no automated individual decisions
as regulated by Article 22 of the GDPR are made here; in important decisions, human intervention is always present.
4. What we do not do, and why
We do not infer emotions or moods of students. Neither
frustration, nor demotivation, nor stress. This is prohibited by Article
5.1.f of the European AI Regulation in educational institutions, and we think
it is good that it is: affectively profiling an adult who studies, to
act on them without their knowledge, is treating them as an object.
That no one gets lost along the way matters to us, and we address it in another way:
behavioral signals —days without logging in, repeatedly failed exercises—
with explainable rules that anyone can understand and verify. None of
them estimates how the student feels; they only look at what they have done, objective data.
With those signals the platform does two things. It can write to the student
a friendly automatic reminder, with no academic consequence whatsoever: it is
a "we miss you, you are still on time," not a warning or a note on their
record. And it notifies a person at the university when it is appropriate
for someone to take a real interest. What it never does is make a decision
that affects their evaluation, their record, or their degree: that is always decided
by a person, and it is in section 3.
The student can deactivate those reminders at any time, and is told how
in the message itself.
We do not use students' work or conversations to train models.
We do not profile students for commercial purposes.
5. Transparency: how the student knows there is an AI
- The platform indicates it, and in the enrolment form the student learns about the use of AI.
- The lesson assistant, the Disputatio Master, and the TFG tutor introduce themselves
as artificial intelligence, and say that they guide but do not
grade. - Exercise correction carries a notice that it has been generated by an AI,
is formative, and the professor can review it. - Reading aloud warns that the voice is synthetic.
- Course content does not carry an on-screen mark: it goes through
approval by a instructor and is published under the responsibility of the
university, like any didactic material. Its origin is recorded
internally.
6. Data and records
- For each generated piece of content, a record is kept of which model produced it and
when, so it can be audited later. - Exercise corrections and content versions are
retained, because they are the record of a system for which European
regulations require traceability. - Student conversations with assistants are deleted after 36 months. What someone asks in private says a lot about them, and there is no reason
to keep it indefinitely. - The student can exercise their rights of access, rectification, deletion, and
opposition by writing to info@iacampus.es.
7. Who is responsible
- The ultimate responsibility for the use of AI on the campus lies with the
university, not with the model provider or the programmer. - The faculty are responsible for the content they approve, whether it was written by a
person or a machine. - Person responsible for monitoring: the President of the
promoting entity is institutionally responsible; operational monitoring
—verifying that what is said here remains true— corresponds to the
academic coordination, which also handles complaints. - Review: annually, and whenever the use of AI changes or a new
degree programme comes into service.
8. If something goes wrong
Any student can appeal a correction they consider unfair, a
content they believe to be erroneous, or treatment they deem inappropriate, and their
complaint is handled by a person.
The procedure, implemented on the campus:
- How: from the link accompanying each automatic correction
("Do you think it is unfair?"), from this same page, or by writing to
info@iacampus.es. - Who resolves: the academic coordination of the programme. Never an AI.
- Deadline: response within 10 business days.
- Record: every complaint and its resolution are recorded, and that
record is reviewed once a year. If several students complain about the same thing,
the problem is not with the students.
Approved by the promoting entity on September 5, 2026. Planned review: annual.