Ball State University.

Detection status: SimCheck (Turnitin) plagiarism detection confirmed deployed via Canvas since at least 2021 and still referenced in current course syllabi; no first-party BSU page located in this review confirms or denies Turnitin's AI-writing-indicator feature; Respondus LockDown Browser and Monitor confirmed for exam proctoring, not AI-text detection
Office in these sources: Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs · Frank A. Bracken Administration Building (AD), Room 326 · 765-285-3716 · vpaa@bsu.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: None located on the institution's own pages in this review. The Dean of Students Office, within the same Division of Student Affairs as the Office of Student Conduct, describes its mission as helping students "reach their fullest potential by providing assistance, education, intervention, and referral services" but does not describe itself as independent, confidential, or having any role in academic-integrity matters · bsu.edu — Dean of Students
Sources last checked: Sep 1, 2026

Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.

Ball State's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case — the Student Academic Ethics Policy, administered by the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, is BSU's governing policy for academic misconduct, including generative-AI misuse; a separate Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities states that alleged academic misconduct is handled under the Ethics Policy rather than under the Code's own hearing process; and course syllabi may add instructor-level rules on AI use. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

What is documented — and what isn't

Ball State's Communications Center — a faculty-development events platform — documents SimCheck as a Canvas-integrated plagiarism tool, in an announcement for an instructor training session (page dated Feb 8, 2021; retrieved Sep 1, 2026):

"SimCheck is a Canvas integrated tool that allows student papers to be submitted and checked for plagiarism. The system compares student papers with sources available on the Internet, select commercial article databases, and papers submitted at Ball State University."

Source: SimCheck Plagiarism Tool in Canvas — Communications Center. The training session was led by "Danielle D'Andrea, Solutions Consultant with Turnitin," confirming SimCheck is Turnitin's product under a campus-facing name. The subscription remains current: dozens of Fall 2025 and Fall 2026 course syllabi surfaced by Ball State's own site search state, in near-identical wording, that the campus subscribes to SimCheck as a plagiarism prevention service through Canvas — but the individual syllabus PDFs are served through session-bound bsu.edu/web/bsudatastream links that cannot be durably cited, so that corroboration is described here rather than quoted and linked.

On the AI-writing-indicator question specifically, the clearest first-party statement found is not about Turnitin by name but about "AI detection" as a category. Ball State's Student Academic Ethics Policy instructs instructors on gathering evidence (Section IV.A.3; Revised: August 2026; retrieved Sep 1, 2026):

"AI detection have recognized limitations regarding reliability and accuracy, and questions regarding data privacy remain largely unanswered. Therefore, instructors are discouraged from using AI detection results as evidence of AI use. Instead, instructors should focus their evidence gathering efforts on more substantive indicators from student work."

Source: Student Academic Ethics Policy (PDF), downloaded from the "Download Policy" link on the Academic Integrity page; the policy document itself is hosted at ballstate.sharepoint.com. This passage confirms the policy addresses "AI detection" as a general concept an instructor might encounter, but it names no specific product, and no page located in this review states whether Turnitin's own AI-writing-indicator feature is turned on for SimCheck submissions. That absence is stated at the scope actually searched, not as a finding that the feature is off.

What was searched and not found. A named-vendor sweep of bsu.edu for Turnitin's AI writing indicator by name, plus Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, and Examity, found none of these named or documented as deployed anywhere on the institution's pages. A category sweep of Information Technology's AI Initiatives section — AI Tools, AI Guidelines, AI Literacy Framework, AI Resources, Getting Started with AI, and Already Familiar with AI? (all read directly) — found only a self-assessment pair of checkers, "Step 1: Should I use AI?" and "Step 2: How should I use AI responsibly?", for students, with no detection tool named on any of them. The University Libraries' "Digging Deeper into AI" guide links to a resource titled "TurnItIn AI detection," but that resource and its accompanying description page are both attributed to Johns Hopkins Engineering, not to a first-party BSU statement, and are not treated here as evidence of BSU's own configuration. Information Technology's Digital Tools page and BSU's own site search for "Turnitin," "SimCheck," and "Respondus" were also checked; none surfaced an IT service-catalogue or Canvas-admin page naming an AI-writing detector.

Separately, Ball State's Teaching Innovation Blog documents Respondus for exam proctoring — not text or writing detection. From "Authentic Assessment as an Alternative to Online Proctoring" (Caleb Green, Mar 26, 2025; retrieved Sep 1, 2026):

"Respondus Monitor is another tool offered to Ball State faculty to limit academic misconduct. This proctoring tool uses the camera in a student's computer and AI analysis of facial and eye movement to serve as a 'live' proctor. The instructor can choose to view this live during the exam attempt or view a recording after the fact. […] To provide this heightened level of security, Respondus Monitor accesses all data that is processed on the computer during the testing session and stores this data on an encrypted server for up to 5 years."

Source: Authentic Assessment as an Alternative to Online Proctoring — The Teaching Innovation Blog. A later post in the same blog series, "Canvas Magic: Securing Exams" (Mac Clark, Sep 17, 2025; retrieved Sep 1, 2026), confirms Respondus LockDown Browser remains offered: "For instructors looking for more security than Canvas may provide, requiring Respondus LockDown Browser for exams offers a solution." Source: Canvas Magic: Securing Exams — The Teaching Innovation Blog. Both posts describe browser lockdown and webcam/screen monitoring during an exam session; neither describes analysis of submitted writing for AI generation, and this stays distinct from Turnitin's AI-writing indicator throughout this page.

02Published process

What Ball State's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: "Advisors. The student and instructor may each be accompanied and assisted at the hearing by one advisor. The advisor must be a student, faculty, or staff person of the University. The student's advisor may be their parent/guardian. However, an advisor may not address the Hearing Panel or witnesses directly." At the earlier private-conference stage, the policy adds: "The advisor must be a student, faculty, or staff person of the University. The student's advisor may include their parent/guardian." No provision on recording the private conference or the Hearing Panel proceeding was located anywhere in the policy's text. — Student Academic Ethics Policy, Sections IV.C and V.B.2 (Revised: August 2026; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) · Student Academic Ethics Policy (PDF)
What follows on the record: "Other than the final grade assigned in a course, a student's academic misconduct shall not be recorded on the student's transcript unless the student is expelled from the University or a previously awarded degree is revoked. In these cases, the transcript has a notation of 'Student may not register due to non-academic reasons' but does not specify expulsion or revocation of degree." On retention: "All materials in a student's academic misconduct file will be destroyed five (5) years after the case is resolved." — Student Academic Ethics Policy, Section VI.H–I (Revised: August 2026; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) · Student Academic Ethics Policy (PDF)

The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.

The Student Academic Ethics Policy (Revised: August 2026; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) sets out a unit-level process before any university-level hearing. An instructor must first request a preliminary inquiry meeting: "Within five (5) school days after becoming aware of a potential academic misconduct, instructors should send a request to the student to have a preliminary inquiry meeting to gather information before determining whether a formal allegation of academic misconduct is warranted." If the instructor formally alleges misconduct after that meeting, the student's silence carries consequences:

"If the student fails to respond in writing to the allegation and/or the resolution within five (5) school days following the conference, it will be considered an admission of responsibility for the allegation and acceptance of the proposed resolution."

A student who disagrees may proceed to a university-level hearing before the Student Academic Ethics Committee's Hearing Panel: "The Hearing Panel shall be composed of five (5) voting members: three (3) faculty, two (2) students selected from either the undergraduate or graduate pool of students to match the status of the accused student; and two (2) non-voting members: the Associate Provost or designee, and the Dean of Students or designee." Each side may present for up to thirty minutes. The instructor or student may then appeal:

"[T]he instructor or the student may appeal the Hearing Panel's decision to the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs. To be considered by the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, such appeals must be received by the Office of the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs within five (5) school days after the date the Hearing Panel's summary, findings, and recommendations are given to the student, the instructor, the instructor's department chairperson, and the instructor's dean. The decision of the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs is final."

Source: Student Academic Ethics Policy (PDF). What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; it is reproduced so you can read the original in context.

A separate document, the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities (v.13, Status: Published, hosted by the Office of Student Conduct), states plainly that it is not the process an academic-misconduct allegation goes through. Its own definition reads: "Academic Misconduct: Acts that violate the Student Academic Ethics Policy, which include but are not limited to cheating, plagiarism, falsely claiming to have completed work, cooperating with another person in academic misconduct, knowingly destroying or altering another student's work, or attempting to commit an act of misconduct. Note: Alleged violations of this prohibition are subject to procedures and consequences outlined in the Student Academic Ethics Policy implemented by the Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs." The Code does set out its own general procedural rights for the non-academic misconduct it does adjudicate — a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard ("more likely than not (greater than 50 percent likely)"), an advisor of the student's choice of whom "[a]t no time may the advisor participate directly in the hearing proceedings" and who "may only consult with their student(s)," and, on recording: "There shall be a single verbatim record, such as an audio recording, of all URB hearings. Deliberations shall not be recorded. No other recording shall be made." Because the Code routes academic misconduct to the Ethics Policy rather than to its own hearing process, these provisions are listed in the source map below for completeness rather than hoisted into the block above as the governing procedure for an AI-cheating allegation.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
Student Academic Ethics Policy (PDF) — governs all academic misconduct, incl. generative-AI use	ballstate.sharepoint.com — Student Academic Ethics Policy (Revised: August 2026; retrieved Sep 1, 2026)
Academic Integrity — process overview, Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs	bsu.edu — Academic Integrity (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 1, 2026)
IT AI Initiatives — AI Tools, AI Guidelines, AI Resources (reviewed for a detection tool; none named)	AI Tools · AI Guidelines · AI Resources (no on-page dates; retrieved Sep 1, 2026)
"Digging Deeper into AI" — Plagiarism Detection & AI (external Johns Hopkins content, not a first-party BSU statement)	bsu.libguides.com — Ethics & Academic Integrity (Last Updated: Aug 5, 2026; retrieved Sep 1, 2026)
SimCheck (Turnitin) plagiarism tool in Canvas	commcenter.bsu.edu — SimCheck Plagiarism Tool in Canvas (Feb 8, 2021; retrieved Sep 1, 2026)
Respondus Monitor — exam proctoring, AI facial/eye-movement analysis	blogs.bsu.edu — Authentic Assessment as an Alternative to Online Proctoring (Mar 26, 2025; retrieved Sep 1, 2026)
Respondus LockDown Browser — exam proctoring (corroboration)	blogs.bsu.edu — Canvas Magic: Securing Exams (Sep 17, 2025; retrieved Sep 1, 2026)
Office of the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs	AD 326 · 765-285-3716 · vpaa@bsu.edu (from the policy PDF and the office's page, retrieved Sep 1, 2026)
Office of Student Conduct — administers the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities	L.A. Pittenger Student Center, Room L-4 · 765-285-5036 · no email published in these sources · bsu.edu — Office of Student Conduct (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 1, 2026)
Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities v.13 — general conduct process, not the academic-misconduct process quoted above	ballstate.navexone.com — Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities (Status: Published; retrieved Sep 1, 2026)
Dean of Students, About Our Office — reviewed for an ombuds/advocacy role; none found	bsu.edu — Dean of Students (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 1, 2026)

Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.

04Change log

Revision history of this page

2026-09-01 — Page created. Most quotations retrieved this date, first-party, from the bsu.edu, commcenter.bsu.edu, and blogs.bsu.edu pages linked beside them, via direct curl requests that succeeded (HTTP 200) even though this pipeline's ordinary web-fetch tool had returned 403 on bsu.edu domains in an earlier pass on this school — the block was tool-specific, not host-wide, and is recorded here so a later session does not defer on it again. Detection sweep. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin's AI writing indicator by name, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Examity) found none named or documented as deployed on bsu.edu. Category sweep of Information Technology's AI Initiatives section (AI Tools, AI Guidelines, AI Literacy Framework, AI Resources, Getting Started with AI, Already Familiar with AI? — all six read directly), the Academic Integrity page and the Student Academic Ethics Policy itself, the University Libraries' "Digging Deeper into AI" guide, IT's Digital Tools page, and BSU's own site search for "Turnitin," "SimCheck," and "Respondus" found SimCheck (Turnitin, plagiarism/similarity) and Respondus (LockDown Browser and Monitor, exam proctoring) as the only two detection-adjacent systems BSU documents deploying. Turnitin/SimCheck deployment. Confirmed via a Communications Center announcement (Feb 8, 2021) naming a Turnitin Solutions Consultant as the session's instructor, and corroborated by wording repeated across dozens of current Fall 2025 and Fall 2026 course syllabi surfaced by BSU's own site search — those syllabus PDFs are served through session-bound bsudatastream links and are not durably citable, so they are described rather than linked. AI-indicator gap. No first-party BSU page located in this review confirms or denies whether Turnitin's AI-writing-indicator feature is enabled for SimCheck submissions. The Student Academic Ethics Policy discourages instructors from using "AI detection results" as evidence without naming a product, and the University Libraries guide's only content on Turnitin's AI detection is attributed to Johns Hopkins Engineering, not stated as BSU's own configuration; the docket and section 01 record this as an absence at the scope searched, not as a finding that the feature is off. Respondus. Confirmed for exam proctoring only — camera-based, AI-assisted facial/eye-movement monitoring during a test session — via two Teaching Innovation Blog posts (Caleb Green, Mar 26, 2025, which carries the "facial and eye movement" and five-year-retention quotations used in section 01; and Mac Clark, Sep 17, 2025, which corroborates that LockDown Browser remains offered). This is kept distinct from AI-text detection throughout the page. Two process tracks. Read in full this date: the 17-page Student Academic Ethics Policy PDF (Revised: August 2026), obtained via the "Download Policy" link on the Academic Integrity page — a ballstate.sharepoint.com anonymous-share link that returns 401 to a plain fetch and required a browser-standard User-Agent header to establish an anonymous viewing session before the PDF itself would download; and the 35-page Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities v.13, hosted in a NAVEX PolicyTech client-rendered document viewer at ballstate.navexone.com (the same session-expired portal a prior pass on this school could not get past) — reached this date via a live browser session that completed the portal's login/session-establishment redirect automatically, after which the viewer's own PDF-download endpoint was located in its page script and fetched with the browser's authenticated session; both are first-party captures by the capture discipline this pipeline uses for portal-gated sources. Reading both PDFs in full resolves the two open questions this school was queued with: the Ethics Policy's text does not address whether the private conference or the Hearing Panel proceeding may be recorded by a party — that absence is stated in section 02 rather than left blank; the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities does address recording for the general conduct process it governs ("a single verbatim record, such as an audio recording... No other recording shall be made"), but its own Academic Misconduct definition (4.2.1) states that alleged violations are "subject to procedures and consequences outlined in the Student Academic Ethics Policy" rather than the Code's own hearing process — so the Code is not the governing procedure for an AI-cheating allegation, and its recording and advisor provisions are listed in the source map for completeness rather than hoisted into section 02, the same treatment this pipeline gave a comparable general-conduct code at UNR. The evidentiary standard named in the Code (preponderance) is not stated anywhere in the Ethics Policy's own text; that gap is recorded here rather than assumed. Office contact. The Ethics Policy PDF states a general office email, vpaa@bsu.edu, on its own cover page — this was not found in an earlier pass that read only the Academic Integrity web page, which lists individual staff emails but no office-wide address. Ombuds. No office titled ombuds, ombudsperson, or advocate was located on any current bsu.edu page; a Student Ombudsperson title appears only in archived student-newspaper coverage, and its phone number now belongs to the Dean of Students Office, which sits in the same Division of Student Affairs as the Office of Student Conduct, Student Legal Services, and Title IX, and does not describe itself as independent, confidential, or academic-integrity-scoped, so the docket records "None located." Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-02). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.