Georgia Institute of Technology.

What Georgia Tech’s own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

“The Respondent and the Reporter have the right to use an Advisor (who may or may not be an attorney) of their choosing, and at their own expense, for the express purpose of providing advice and counsel.” The same definition adds that the Advisor “may advise the advisee in any manner, including providing questions, suggestions, and guidance on responses to any questions asked of the advisee, but shall not participate directly during the investigation and/or resolution process unless it is a Title IX proceeding.” On recording, the Code states of a hearing: “The Student Conduct Panel shall make a recording of the proceeding, which will serve as the official record of the hearing. No other recording will be permitted,” and that the Respondent “may request a copy of the Institute's recording.” — Student Code of Conduct, Definitions and Section on Student Conduct Panel hearings (Policy Library; Last Revised June 2025, Review Date March 2028; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · policylibrary.gatech.edu — Student Code of Conduct

What follows on the record

Georgia Tech publishes a disclosure ladder rather than a transcript-notation rule: “Academic or non-academic misconduct resulting in expulsion may be released to third parties indefinitely”; “Academic misconduct that resulted in suspension may be released to third parties for five years after sanction completion”; and “Any academic or non-academic misconduct that did not result in suspension or expulsion is not released to third parties.” The Code adds that “The Institute requires a specific written request from the student to release the entire disciplinary record to third parties,” and that retention runs “in accordance with USG Records Retention Schedules,” a University System of Georgia schedule rather than a period stated in the Code. A separate provision covers holds: in pending cases that could result in suspension or expulsion, the Associate Vice President for Student Life & Dean of Students “will normally place a temporary encumbrance (hold) on a Respondent’s records.” No provision placing a notation on the transcript itself was located in the Code. — Student Code of Conduct, Section I (Record Keeping and Release of Information) and the Transcript Encumbrances provision (retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · policylibrary.gatech.edu — Student Code of Conduct

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

Georgia Tech publishes two standards of proof in the same passage, which is unusual among the institutions on this site. The Student Code of Conduct states (retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

Source: Student Code of Conduct, Definitions and hearing procedures. The Code's separate procedural list for the resolution process states flatly that “The standard of review shall be a Preponderance of the Evidence,” and that “Formal judicial rules of evidence do not apply to the investigatory or resolution process.” Both passages are reproduced here as the Code carries them; which applies to any particular proceeding is for the institution and its process to determine.

On how a case starts and who hears it, the Office of Student Integrity states (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

Source: Academic Misconduct Process — Office of Student Integrity. The same page states that an instructor “may hold a Faculty Conference” as an alternative route, and that a student's stated preference on who hears the case “must be conveyed to the Associate Vice President for Student Life & Dean of Students, in writing, before the investigation begins.”

On appeals, the Office of Student Integrity states that “The appeal must be addressed to the appropriate Appellate Officer and delivered to the Office of Student Integrity within five (5) business days of the delivery of the decision,” that “Appeal decisions will normally be rendered within ten (10) business days,” and that “If a case is appealed, sanctions are not imposed unless the welfare of a person or the community is threatened.” Appeals “will be considered only for” four stated reasons: whether the original hearing was conducted fairly and in conformity with prescribed procedures; whether there was sufficient evidence to support the decision; whether the sanctions imposed were appropriate; and whether new information not available at the time of the hearing is relevant. For outcomes carrying suspension or expulsion the appeal runs to the Institute President, and the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia “is the final appellate authority for all cases of suspension or expulsion that have been reviewed by the Institute President.” Source: Appeal Process — Office of Student Integrity (retrieved Aug 27, 2026).

The Academic Honor Code is where academic misconduct is defined, and it names no detection tool and no AI: its categories are Unauthorized Access, Unauthorized Collaboration, Plagiarism, False Claims of Performance, Grade Alteration, Deliberate Falsification, Forgery, and Distortion, followed by the sentence “While these acts constitute assured instances of academic misconduct, other acts of academic misconduct may be defined by the professor.” The same document routes cases to a body the current OSI pages do not mention — “the Student Honor Committee as the body given jurisdiction to hear all cases of alleged academic misconduct” — and cites the General Catalog's Article XIX for that jurisdiction. That divergence between the Honor Code and the process Georgia Tech's conduct office publishes is reproduced here and not resolved. Source: Academic Honor Code — Policy Library (no on-page revision date displayed; the document is attributed at its foot to the Office of Student Integrity, 2009; retrieved Aug 27, 2026).

What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-27 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the gatech.edu pages linked beside them and captured first-party as plain text; nothing on this page is paraphrase-pending. Dates as the institution displays them: the Student Code of Conduct carries “Last Revised June 2025” and “Review Date March 2028”; the Academic Honor Code displays no revision date and is attributed at its foot to the Office of Student Integrity, 2009; the OIT and Office of Student Integrity pages display no dates of their own, which is stated beside each quotation rather than filled in.

2026-08-27 — Detection sweep. Searched on gatech.edu for Turnitin (including the AI writing indicator, SimCheck and Originality product names), Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity; and by category across OIT's AI academics, guidance, tools and governance pages, the Canvas/Digital Learning integration pages, the Office of Student Integrity's policy and process pages, and the Policy Library. Found and named on the page: Turnitin AI writing detection in Canvas, and Honorlock, whose scope is remote proctoring and whose stated AI function is detecting enabled Chrome plugins rather than scoring writing. Came back empty: every other named vendor, and any statement of the evidentiary weight a detector result carries. Recorded but not treated as a detector: OIT's statement that third-party AI plugins are disabled pending risk review.

2026-08-27 — Substantive findings for the reviewer. First, TWO evidentiary standards appear in the same Code: preponderance for a Student Conduct Panel generally, and Substantial Evidence — defined in the Code as “evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion” — where suspension or expulsion is possible, while a separate procedural list states the standard of review “shall be a Preponderance of the Evidence.” Both are reproduced without deciding which governs. Second, no transcript-notation provision was located anywhere in the Code; what Georgia Tech publishes instead is a third-party disclosure ladder tied to the sanction, plus a temporary records hold in pending suspension or expulsion cases. Third, the recording rule is unusually explicit in both directions — the panel records, no one else may, and the student may request a copy. Fourth, a divergence reproduced and not resolved: the Academic Honor Code assigns jurisdiction over academic misconduct to a “Student Honor Committee” that the Office of Student Integrity's current process pages do not mention.

2026-08-27 — Deliberate omissions. A College of Computing news item about a professor deploying a plagiarism-detection tool in one course, and a Writing and Communication Program handbook page on plagiarism and unapproved AI use, were both located and are not used: each is a unit-level or single-course artifact, and neither states an Institute-wide deployment. A draft Institute AI policy PDF dated 10.14.2025 on the Provost's site was not quoted, because it is labelled a draft. The Institutional AI Register is a Tableau visualization and could not be captured as text; it is described only as OIT describes it. The Turnitin knowledge-base article is behind single sign-on and is listed title and link only. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-27). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-29 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; an automated source re-verification, not a human editorial review. Every first-party source linked here was fetched again and compared against the page: the OIT AI academics and guidance pages, the Student Code of Conduct (still Last Revised June 2025, Review Date March 2028) and Academic Honor Code, the OSI academic-misconduct, appeal and sanctioning-guidelines pages, the OSI contact and Honor Advisory Council pages, and the Ombuds page. All quotations still verbatim and all stated dates intact; the ServiceNow knowledge-base article remains behind single sign-on as the page states. Detection sweep re-run: no net-new detector and no status change — OIT still names only Turnitin (assignment writing detection) and Honorlock (proctoring that flags enabled AI browser plugins), and the third-party-AI-plugin disablement stands. OSI, Ombuds and Honor Advisory Council contacts confirmed unchanged. Internet Archive captures were requested this date but the Save Page Now endpoint was unavailable from this environment; captures remain to be added. Automated research pass.

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