Georgia State University.

What GSU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"The faculty member and the student will be allowed to make oral presentations, call Witnesses, and present any documentary information regarding the incident in question. The hearing will be recorded on audio tape. The hearing will not be open to observers." Section III (Academic Conduct) names no right for the student to bring an advisor or support person; that right is stated only in Section II (General Conduct) — "Both Respondent and Complainant have the right to an Advisor of their choosing … [who] may accompany the Respondent or Complainant at meetings and proceedings" — and the Student Ethics and Standards Board that hears General Conduct cases "may not hear cases of alleged violations of the Policy on Academic Honesty." — III. Academic Conduct Policies and Procedures, §4.D (contrast: II. General Conduct Policies and Procedures, §6), 2026-2027 Student Handbook (approved Jun 25, 2025; retrieved via browser Aug 24, 2026) · III. Academic Conduct Policies and Procedures

What follows on the record

"Disciplinary penalties can be sought in addition to those considered academic and could include, but are not limited to, the following: suspension, expulsion, transcript annotations (temporary for a period of five years or permanent, as designated)." Separately, the Dean's Certification practice excludes from third-party disclosure "academic honesty violations in which the outcome was limited to an academic penalty (i.e., no disciplinary penalty was issued)" — implying a case with a disciplinary penalty, including a transcript annotation, is disclosable to third parties with the student's consent. — III. Academic Conduct Policies and Procedures, §5.A; Dean's Certification procedure, Office of the Dean of Students (retrieved Aug 24, 2026) · III. Academic Conduct Policies and Procedures

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

From III. Academic Conduct Policies and Procedures, 2026-2027 Student Handbook (approved by the Senate Executive Committee Jun 25, 2025; retrieved via browser Aug 24, 2026 — the catalog returns an empty body to a plain fetch):

Source: III. Academic Conduct Policies and Procedures — 2026-2027 Student Handbook. Appeals run from the College Dean's decision to the Provost, then the president, then the Board of Regents; each step requires a written appeal "on the grounds that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory," generally filed within ten business days of notification. A second finding of academic dishonesty is reported by the Dean of Students to the University Senate Committee on Student Discipline "even if [a disciplinary penalty] was not recommended by the faculty member" on the first finding.

The Office of the Dean of Students' Dean's Certification procedure — a letter "commonly requested by third parties for a variety of reasons (e.g., transferring to another institution, admission to graduate/professional programs, state bar associations, government agencies, and for certain forms of employment)" — states that it will release "all Code of Conduct violations for which a student has been found responsible" and "all disciplinary sanctions issued," while excluding "academic honesty violations in which the outcome was limited to an academic penalty" and matters "resolved through alternative resolution options, including mediation, informal resolution, and restorative justice." Source: Academic Integrity — Office of the Provost (retrieved Aug 24, 2026). What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; these are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-24 — Page created. Detection status: Turnitin Originality Checker confirmed first-party as GSU's institutionally licensed, iCollege-integrated tool with "Limited AI Detection" among its listed features (CETLOE tool page, dated Sep 6, 2022). CETLOE's instructor AI-FAQ hub supplies the strongest first-party statement found this run on evidentiary use of any school captured to date: "Detector results alone should never be treated as proof of misconduct," and using a detector "to inform assessment or disciplinary decisions is a form of automated decision-making that should not occur without consulting with the University AI Committee" — quoted in full on the page. STEP-2 CHECK: not a disqualification — the same FAQ entry states Turnitin "is integrated into iCollege and approved for use with student work"; the caution is against sole reliance and unconsulted disciplinary use, not a disabling or a recommendation against use, so the school was built rather than excluded. The Academic Conduct policy (2026-2027 Student Handbook, approved by the Senate Executive Committee Jun 25, 2025) names AI twice in its own definitions ("Unauthorized Collaboration," "Improper Use of Technologies and Other Tools") but names no detector by name and states nothing about a detector's evidentiary weight in a Notice of Academic Dishonesty — recorded as an absence, not inferred. CAPTURE METHOD: catalogs.gsu.edu (Acalog/CourseLeaf-family catalog software, like Buffalo's and UNT's) returns an empty body to a plain fetch; both catalog sections quoted on this page (III. Academic Conduct and II. General Conduct) were captured by browser read and are reproduced verbatim from that read. ADVISOR-SCOPE FINDING: Section III (Academic Conduct) states only that the student may "make oral presentations, call Witnesses, and present any documentary information" and that the hearing "will not be open to observers" — it names no right to bring an advisor or support person. Section II (General Conduct) does grant an explicit Advisor right, but the Student Ethics and Standards Board that hears General Conduct cases "may not hear cases of alleged violations of the Policy on Academic Honesty," so that right was not carried over to the Academic Conduct row — this is a genuine scope gap, stated on the page rather than smoothed over by borrowing the General Conduct language. TRANSCRIPT/DISCLOSURE: transcript annotation quoted verbatim from §5.A ("temporary for a period of five years or permanent, as designated"); disclosure practice added from the Dean's Certification procedure, which excludes purely academic-penalty cases from third-party release, letting a reader infer (not stated outright by GSU) that disciplinary-penalty cases are disclosable with consent. OMBUDS TRAP CHECK: GSU's Office of the Ombudsperson states it is available to "all members of the GSU community" (students, faculty, staff, and administrators — not one population only) and that it does "Not … Participate in formal processes," "Receive official reports or complaints," or "Serve as an advocate for any person," confirming independence from the Dean of Students; recorded as independent rather than an advocacy program. Also noted: the General Conduct process (Section II) names the Ombudsperson's office as an optional mediation venue for General Conduct matters specifically, with the Dean of Students' prior written consent — that mediation role does not extend to Academic Conduct matters, which have no comparable informal-resolution track in the sources reviewed. Perimeter merger: the 2026-2027 Student Handbook and the Office of the Dean of Students appear unified across GSU's Atlanta, Alpharetta, Clarkston, Decatur, Dunwoody, and Newton campuses (the former Georgia Perimeter College); no Perimeter-specific academic-integrity variant was located. Email addresses for the Dean of Students (deanofstudents@gsu.edu) and the Ombudsperson (ombuds@gsu.edu) are Cloudflare-obfuscated on their own pages and could not be decoded by direct fetch; both were corroborated by independent web search results describing the same offices at the same addresses. Subreddit/forum demand scan not run this pass (outside this run's research method). Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-24).

2026-08-27 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; no change found. CETLOE's Turnitin Originality Checker tool page (still dated Sep 6, 2022, "Limited AI Detection" still among Key Features) and the Artificial Intelligence in Teaching and Learning FAQ hub were re-fetched: both quoted passages remain verbatim, including "Detector results alone should never be treated as proof of misconduct." The Office of the Provost Academic Integrity page's Dean's Certification disclosure language ("limited to an academic penalty"; the letter is "commonly requested by third parties") is unchanged. The 2026-2027 Student Handbook Sections III (Academic Conduct) and II (General Conduct) were re-captured by browser; catalogs.gsu.edu still returns an empty body to a plain fetch, but the catalog's print view (the same URL with &print) renders the full text, and every quotation on this page was found verbatim there — the two AI definitions, the hearing "oral presentations, call Witnesses … will not be open to observers" language, the notice-and-appeal steps, the preponderance standard, the "at least five (5) business days in advance" disclosure rule, the §5.A transcript-annotation penalty, and the Section II advisor-right and Ombudsperson-mediation passages — with the same "Approved by Senate Executive Committee on June 25, 2025" date. Detection-inventory sweep re-run (named-vendor and category): no second detector is documented first-party for GSU; Turnitin remains the only institutionally documented tool. Office and ombuds contacts re-checked against the source map and unchanged. Archive capture: Save Page Now was unreachable from this environment this date (endpoint blocked), so captures remain pending for a future review. 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.