King’s College London’s student union releases a pioneering AI manifesto developed through collaborative workshops, setting fresh principles for ethical, transparent, and pedagogically sound AI use in response to increasing institutional investments and misconduct concerns.
King’s College London’s student union published an AI manifesto in January 2026 that sets out how students want generative artificial intelligence to be treated within the institution, following a series of workshops held during the first semester of the 2025/26 academic year. According to Roar, the document is intended to clarify expectations around AI use and reflect the views students raised at those sessions.
The manifesto was driven by Sheeba Naaz, the KCLSU Vice President (Postgraduate), who led a process of gathering student input and partnered with TASK Student Partners (Transforming Assessment for Students at King’s) to form an AI Taskforce charged with drafting the proposals. The union hosted dedicated “AI Manifesto Labs” on 27 November 2025 to co-create the text with students.
At its core the manifesto sets out five principles that organisers say encapsulate student priorities: Integrity , students and staff should prioritise “deep learning” and “skill development”; Adaptability , teaching and policy must evolve to teach skills relevant for the future; Clarity , students must “be transparent about AI assistance” and staff should provide “specific guidelines on acceptable AI use”; Ethics , a commitment to fairness, privacy, intellectual property, sustainability and the mitigation of social and algorithmic bias; and Collaboration , joint working between staff and students on implementation.
The student-led document sits alongside, but distinct from, university guidance. King’s College London tells students that generative AI is not prohibited and should be used ethically and responsibly; the institution expects learners to critically evaluate AI outputs, take ownership of their work and follow academic integrity rules. The university’s broader AI framework addresses governance, equity of access, terminology, evaluation and training as it seeks to integrate generative tools with due consideration for ethics and sustainability.
The manifesto arrives against a backdrop of enforcement and investment at King’s. Roar reported that since 2022 ten students have been expelled for AI-related misconduct, and an exclusive story revealed the university spent £35,013 on Microsoft Copilot licences from September 2024. Roar’s coverage also cited student survey figures indicating about 60% of students used AI to summarise readings and 57% used it to help generate ideas for assessments, underscoring why students and officials are seeking clearer rules.
Supporters of the manifesto argue it will help prioritise student concerns and create a shared foundation for policy-making. The union and TASK emphasise co-production so that guidance reflects lived student experience rather than being imposed unilaterally. The issue is drawing wider academic attention: institutions including King’s are participating in international discussions on generative AI in higher education, with a conference co-hosted by the LSE, King’s and Peking University planned to showcase evolving practice and research.
Beyond governance, King’s is also expanding curricular engagement with AI through teaching: the university offers modules such as “Artificial Intelligence in Public Policy” that examine uses, risks and regulation of AI in the public sphere. The student manifesto’s authors say their aim is not to ban tools but to ensure transparent, fair and pedagogically sound use that protects academic standards and prepares graduates for a workplace where AI is increasingly present.
Source Reference Map
Inspired by headline at: [1]
Sources by paragraph:
Source: Noah Wire Services
Noah Fact Check Pro
The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.
Freshness check
Score:
8
Notes:
The article reports on the publication of the KCLSU AI Manifesto in January 2026. A similar article from Roar News, dated 4 January 2026, discusses the drafting of the manifesto, indicating that the content is recent and original. ([roarnews.co.uk](https://roarnews.co.uk/2026/kclsu-drafts-ai-manifesto-amid-student-concerns-over-unclear-ai-rules/?utm_source=openai))
Quotes check
Score:
7
Notes:
The article includes direct quotes from Sheeba Naaz, KCLSU Vice President (Postgraduate), and outlines the five key principles of the manifesto. While the quotes are not independently verifiable online, they are consistent with the information provided in the Roar News article from 4 January 2026. ([roarnews.co.uk](https://roarnews.co.uk/2026/kclsu-drafts-ai-manifesto-amid-student-concerns-over-unclear-ai-rules/?utm_source=openai))
Source reliability
Score:
6
Notes:
The article is sourced from Roar News, the student newspaper of King’s College London. While it provides detailed information, Roar News is a student-run publication and may have limited editorial oversight compared to major news organisations. The article is not republished across low-quality sites or clickbait networks.
Plausibility check
Score:
8
Notes:
The claims about the manifesto’s publication and its five key principles are plausible and align with the information from the Roar News article dated 4 January 2026. The article also references the £35,013 spent on Microsoft Copilot licenses and the expulsion of 10 students for AI misuse since 2022, which are consistent with the information from the Roar News article dated 10 January 2026. ([roarnews.co.uk](https://roarnews.co.uk/2026/exclusive-kings-spends-35k-on-copilot-ai-as-10-students-expelled-for-ai-misuse-since-2022/?utm_source=openai))
Overall assessment
Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS
Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): MEDIUM
Summary:
The article provides a recent and plausible account of the KCLSU AI Manifesto and related developments at King’s College London. However, the reliance on sources from Roar News and King’s College London, which are directly involved in the events reported, and the lack of independent verification from external news organisations or third-party sources, raise concerns about the independence and verification of the information. While the content is original and not recycled, the limited independence of the verification sources and the absence of external verification suggest a medium level of confidence in the article’s accuracy.