California State University, Northridge.

What CSUN's own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"You may request to be accompanied by an advisor of your choosing or request the university to provide one by submitting your request in writing to the OSCED five days in advance of the conference. … The advisor is limited in their role and may support you but not speak on your behalf." On the conduct conference: "The conference will not be recorded." — Student Conduct Process, Office of Student Conduct (retrieved Aug 24, 2026) · Student Conduct Process. On the formal hearing, the systemwide CSU Student Conduct Process (CSU Executive Order 1098, revision effective Oct 6, 2023, read from a CSU-campus-hosted copy; retrieved Aug 24, 2026) adds: "The Hearing Officer shall make an official audio recording of the hearing … The recording is University Property. No other recording of the hearing is permitted." · Executive Order 1098 (PDF)

What follows on the record

"Disciplinary records of any action of academic dishonesty are retained in the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs. These records may be available to prospective employers and other educational institutions, in accordance with federal and state regulations." — Academic Integrity Policy, CSUN Catalog (retrieved Aug 24, 2026) · Academic Integrity Policy. On transcript notation specifically, Executive Order 1098 states, systemwide: "A record of disciplinary probation or suspension is entered on a Student's transcript, with beginning and end date, for the duration of the sanction. A record of expulsion or suspension for one academic year or more … remains on the transcript permanently, without exception."

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

From CSUN's Academic Integrity Policy and the Office of Student Conduct's own process page (both retrieved Aug 24, 2026):

Sources: Academic Integrity Policy; Student Conduct Process. A faculty member may instead resolve the matter at the course level with a grade penalty alone, an option the Academic Integrity Policy separately describes; a student who disputes such a grade penalty may file with the Academic Grievance and Grade Appeals Board. Sanctions recommended by OSCED range from "restitution" and "educational and remedial sanctions" through "disciplinary probation" and "suspension," under Title 5, § 41301 of the California Code of Regulations. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-24 — Page created. All quotations captured this date from the csun.edu, catalog.csun.edu, and news.csun.edu pages and PDFs linked beside them. Detection status is confirmed first-party: CSUN's central IT division hosts a recurring faculty session titled "Turnitin AI Detection" ("Gain a clear understanding of how Turnitin's AI detection works…"), and the Provost/Faculty President's joint Aug 25, 2023 memorandum — still the current AI-guidance document linked from CSUN's Academic Technology AI page in this review — states the university "highly encourage[s] faculty to utilize Turnitin" while stating OSCED "will not rely solely on AI detection scores as an evidentiary standard alone." This is not a step-2 disqualification: the tool is documented as licensed, trained on, and encouraged, and the caution is against sole reliance rather than a deactivation or a recommendation against use — same reviewer-judgment family as tamu/usf/cincinnati/uga/gsu/csulb/ttu on this site. Notably, CSUN's plain IT Turnitin service page names no AI feature at all; the AI-specific documentation lives on the separate Academic Technology AI hub and in IT's own event listings, a split worth keeping visible on the page. No CSUN document located in this review states whether an AI-detection score functions as corroborating evidence once a matter reaches OSCED, only that it is "not sufficient" alone — that narrower absence is stated on the page rather than filled in. OMBUDS TRAP CHECKED AND EXCLUDED: the only CSUN office titled "Ombudsperson" found in this review is the CSBS Ombudsperson, whose own job description scopes it to "constituents of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences (CSBS) community" — a single college, not the general student population, matching the sub-school trap this site's method warns against (Buffalo's Jacobs School of Medicine ombuds is the precedent). No general campus ombuds or independent student-advocacy office was located; the Division of Student Affairs / Dean of Students is not treated as independent here because it is the same reporting line that houses OSCED. Office contact (Valera Hall 300, (818) 677-2391, studentconduct@csun.edu) is quoted from the Office of Student Conduct's own contact block, repeated identically on its Academic Integrity and Student Conduct Process pages. Procedure quotations for the conduct conference and its non-recording are taken from CSUN's own Student Conduct Process page rather than paraphrased; the formal hearing's official-recording rule is not stated on any CSUN-authored page located in this review and is added from CSU Executive Order 1098 (systemwide), read from a CSU Chico–hosted PDF because the official calstate.policystat.com copy returned nothing to plain fetches — the same capture method already used on this site's other CSU pages (csuf, csulb); confirming the official copy remains a flagged manual read. Transcript-notation language is likewise not stated on a CSUN-authored page in this review beyond the general disciplinary-records sentence quoted from the Academic Integrity Policy, so the specific probation/suspension/expulsion transcript rule is added from Executive Order 1098. Subreddit demand scan not run (outside this run's research method; CU Boulder and Virginia Tech, researched the same day, were excluded before reaching a demand scan). Automated research pass. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-24). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-27 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; no change found. The Provost/Faculty President AI-guidance memo (still dated Aug 25, 2023) was re-fetched and every quoted passage remains verbatim — "We highly encourage faculty to utilize Turnitin at this time, unless advised otherwise," "Relying solely on an AI detection score is not sufficient evidence when a student is facing disciplinary action from the Office of Student Conduct and Ethical Development (OSCED)," the Turnitin under-20% false-positive / asterisk statement, and "OSCED will not rely solely on AI detection scores as an evidentiary standard alone." The catalog Academic Integrity Policy (now served under the 2026-2027 catalog banner; policy text unchanged) still carries the "use of artificial intelligence" cheating language, the syllabus-statement provision, and the disciplinary-records sentence ("may be available to prospective employers and other educational institutions"), all verbatim. Detection-inventory sweep re-run: Turnitin remains the only licensed and encouraged detector; third-party tools are reviewed but not endorsed, and no new institutional detector is documented first-party. Not separately re-fetched this pass and retained as last verified 2026-08-24: the Student Conduct Process page, the "Turnitin AI Detection" IT event listing, the Academic Technology AI hub, the Turnitin IT service page, and EO 1098 — flagged for the next pass. Office and ombuds findings (the CSBS-scoped ombuds excluded) unchanged. Archive capture: Save Page Now was unreachable from this environment this date (endpoint blocked); captures remain pending. Automated source re-verification; no human review implied.

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