University of Houston.

What UH's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

“All parties shall have the right to advice of counsel of choice. […] If either party will be advised by legal counsel, this individual may attend the hearing but shall not directly participate in the hearing or enter into discussion with the parties present.” Neither Article 5 (departmental hearing) nor Article 6.06 (college hearing) of the Policy itself names a general advisor, support person, or note-taker — both name only legal counsel, under the same restriction. UH's student-facing FAQ adds, of the departmental hearing specifically: “May I bring anyone to the Departmental hearing? Yes. You may bring an individual for support. This person is not allowed to participate in the hearing.” — a provision not found in the Policy's own text. On recording: “The hearing shall have an audio recording. The parties involved may obtain a copy of the recording from the college hearing officer at the expense of the requesting party.” — Academic Honesty Policy, Articles 5.01(b) and 6.06 (policy footer marked “UC/GPSC FALL 2015”; retrieved Aug 24, 2026) · Academic Honesty Policy (PDF); Academic Honesty FAQs (updated_time Jun 30, 2025; retrieved Aug 24, 2026) · Academic Honesty FAQs

What follows on the record

“A sanction of probation, suspension or expulsion under this policy will be expressly noted as such on the student’s transcript, unless specified in the sanction that it should not be noted.” The same article states: “Notations of expulsion because of academic dishonesty are a permanent part of a student’s transcript.” — Academic Honesty Policy, Article 8.03, Notations on a Student’s Transcript (policy footer marked “UC/GPSC FALL 2015”; retrieved Aug 23, 2026) · Academic Honesty Policy (PDF)

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

From the Academic Honesty Policy (policy footer marked "UC/GPSC FALL 2015"; retrieved Aug 23, 2026):

The policy sets out a two-stage hearing structure, with the college stage heard afresh:

And a final, procedural-only review by the provost:

Source for all of the above: Academic Honesty Policy (PDF), published by the Office of the Provost at its academic honesty page (page's own updated_time Oct 1, 2025; retrieved Aug 23, 2026), which states: "The official University of Houston Academic Honesty Policy appears in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs."

UH's student-facing FAQ restates several of these points in plain language (page's own updated_time Jun 30, 2025; retrieved Aug 23, 2026): "Yes, both you and the instructor have equal right of appeal to a college-level Academic Honesty hearing panel made up of faculty and students"; "Can I review the information presented by the faculty member in my academic honesty case? Yes, at the hearing"; "Do I have the right to question the accusations against me? Yes, at a departmental hearing you may ask questions relevant to your case"; and "The outcome of a college hearing may be appealed to the provost by either the student or instructor within five class days of the panel's decision." Source: Academic Honesty FAQs.

One thing the policy does not state is a standard of proof. Many institutions publish a "preponderance of the evidence" standard for these proceedings; UH's Academic Honesty Policy, as captured, names only the "reasonable grounds" threshold an instructor uses to initiate a case, and states that its procedures are meant to be "consistent with the principles of due process of law." No published UH standard of proof for a finding was located in this review. The policy also publishes flowcharts of the instructor role, the waiver of departmental hearing, and the departmental and college hearing processes as separate PDFs; those are listed in the source map and were not captured as text for this page. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-23 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the uh.edu and instruction.uh.edu pages linked beside them. Source dates where published: Apr 24, 2025 (FDIS Turnitin page), Aug 15, 2022 (Instruction @ UH post), Feb 13, 2026 (AI FAQ), Oct 1, 2025 (provost academic honesty page), Jun 30, 2025 (academic honesty FAQs); the Academic Honesty Policy PDF carries no revision date, only the footer marker "UC/GPSC FALL 2015" on every page. Captured first-party: the Turnitin institutional license and AI-detection tool, the license's course-work-only restriction, the five-class-day notification duty, the departmental hearing and its evidence-examination and postponement provisions, the ten-class-day request for a de novo college hearing, the college panel's composition and voting thresholds, the audio recording provision, the suspension of sanctions during appeal, and the five-class-day/fifteen-class-day provost review. Located but NOT captured as text: the knowledge-base article "Turnitin's New AI Detector Score" — the title is confirmed in UH's own Turnitin LTI article index, linked in the source map, but the article's individual URL was not discoverable and its body is not quoted or characterized here; the provost's four academic-honesty process flowchart PDFs, listed by title only; UH's Canvas-hosted tutorials and sample AI syllabus statements, which sit behind login. Deliberately omitted: any statement that UH has enabled or disabled the Turnitin AI indicator as an institutional decision, or that detector output may or may not be used as evidence — no first-party page saying either was located, and the omission is stated in section 01 rather than inferred. Also omitted: the catalog page at uh.edu/academics/catalog/policies/academ-reg/academic-honesty/, which renders a superseded version of the policy (its own footer reads "This Page Last Updated: October 1, 2012" and its article numbering differs from the current PDF); it is not linked here. The current Acalog catalog entry at publications.uh.edu could not be captured as text. Note for future review: an Instruction @ UH post dated Nov 1, 2024 announces that the site is moving to Canvas, which would put the instruction.uh.edu citations behind login. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-24). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-23 — Ombuds capture added this date: UH's Office of Ombuds Services states on its own page that it serves faculty and staff with workplace and employment concerns, and its ombudsperson is titled Faculty and Staff Ombudsperson; it is therefore not a resource for students facing academic honesty matters. The Graduate School lists separate ombuds services for graduate and professional students, which could not be captured as text this date. No ombuds serving undergraduates was located. Sources re-fetched and compared this date; automated pass, not a human review.

2026-08-23 — Section 02 now opens with the two questions an adviser raises first. The Academic Honesty Policy PDF was re-read in full this date for both answers. Who may be present. Article 6.06(f) grants a right to advice of counsel and limits counsel to attendance without participation; the parallel departmental provision requires three class days’ notice and states the hearing “cannot be held with such counsel in attendance unless a representative from University of Houston legal counsel is also present.” The absence is recorded as found: UH names counsel, not a general support person. The audio-recording sentence was already quoted in this page’s prose and is repeated in the block. What follows on the record. Article 8.03 supplies the notation rule and the removal petition; Article 5.01a states that settling by waiver of the departmental hearing “will not result in any record being kept that is reflected on the student’s transcript,” while Article 8.02 states the Office of the Provost maintains a record of students found in violation at any level, waivers included. Automated pass; no human review is claimed for this entry.

2026-08-24 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; automated pass, not a human review. Unchanged and verbatim: the FDIS Turnitin page (still updated_time Apr 24, 2025), the Instruction @ UH Turnitin-in-Canvas post, the Academic Honesty Policy landing page and its FAQ page (both re-confirmed at their prior updated_time values), and the full Academic Honesty Policy PDF, re-read start to finish — every quotation on this page, including Article 5's departmental-hearing sequence, Article 6.06's college-panel composition and counsel provisions, and Articles 7 and 8's provost review and transcript-notation rules, matches the current PDF text exactly. CORRECTION: the Academic Honesty FAQ's "May I bring anyone to the Departmental hearing?" answer — "Yes. You may bring an individual for support. This person is not allowed to participate in the hearing." — was not previously captured; the Policy's own Article 5 text names only legal counsel, not a general support person, so the FAQ adds a departmental-hearing-only allowance the Policy itself does not state. Added to the "Who may be present" row this date. MOVED: the Graduate School's ombuds-services page has moved from uh.edu/graduate-school/student-resources/ombuds-services/ (now empty) to uh.edu/graduate-school/ombuds-services/; link updated in the docket and source map. The new page names the current Ombudsperson for Graduate and Professional Students (Dr. Funda Sahin, gradombuds@uh.edu) and otherwise restates what this page already characterized: independent, confidential, informal, graduate/professional students only. FLAGGED FOR MANUAL CHECK: the AI at UH FAQ page (uh.edu/ai/ai-tools/faq.php), source of the page's one quoted central AI-integrity caution — "Focus on transparency and responsible use rather than detection alone" — could not be re-verified this date. The uh.edu/ai/ai-tools/ section now presents an entirely different page (a Copilot/ChatGPT/Gemini tool-comparison guide with no FAQ structure and no detection-related language), and neither the exact quotation nor an equivalent statement could be located anywhere on uh.edu by search this date. This does not necessarily mean the statement no longer exists — it may sit at an unindexed URL — but it could not be confirmed, and the quotation on this page could not be re-verified as current. Since this is the sole first-party language behind the page's "reviewer-judgment, not a step-2 disqualification" characterization, this is flagged for editorial attention rather than resolved automatically; the quotation is retained, labeled with its last confirmed date (Aug 23, 2026), pending a manual check of UH's restructured AI site. Archive captures: still pending — Save Page Now (web.archive.org/save) remains unreachable from this run environment. Convention backfill: the two prior appearances of hello@gatheredwork.com on this page (footer and this log) are now live mailto links.

2026-08-25 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; automated pass, not a human review. PRIOR FLAG RESOLVED. The AI at UH FAQ page (uh.edu/ai/ai-tools/faq.php), which the Aug 24 pass could not re-verify and flagged for manual check, was re-fetched successfully this date. The page is live, carries its previously recorded updated_time of Feb 13, 2026 unchanged, and still states verbatim, in its answer to “How should faculty address academic integrity and AI in their courses?”, the bullet this page quotes: “Focus on transparency and responsible use rather than detection alone”. The second quotation from the same page, on faculty use of AI for grading, is also verbatim and unchanged. The Aug 24 failure is now attributable to the retrieval method available to that run rather than to any change on UH's part: the page is reached from the “FAQs” item in the AI at UH section navigation, and the uh.edu/ai/ai-tools/ landing page noted on Aug 24 as a Copilot/ChatGPT/Gemini comparison guide is a sibling page, not a replacement for it. Nothing on this page needed correction; the AI FAQ quotation now carries its re-verification date beside its retrieval date, and the page's characterization of UH as documenting detection without a central evidentiary-use statement stands on re-verified first-party text. Also re-fetched and found unchanged and verbatim this date: the FDIS Turnitin page (still updated_time Apr 24, 2025, including the AI-detection-tool sentence and the license restriction), the provost's Academic Honesty Policy landing page (still updated_time Oct 1, 2025, including the sentence that the official policy “appears in the Undergraduate and Graduate Catalogs”), and the Academic Honesty FAQs page (still updated_time Jun 30, 2025), whose four quoted answers — the equal right of appeal, the review of the faculty member's information at the hearing, the right to question accusations at a departmental hearing, the five-class-day provost appeal — and the “May I bring anyone to the Departmental hearing?” answer added on Aug 24 all match the live text exactly. NOTED, NOT RESOLVED (source-side inconsistencies, no change made here). First, on both the honesty landing page and the FAQs page, UH displays the academic-honesty contact address as hkennedy@uh.edu while the underlying mailto link on the same line points to hakennedy@central.uh.edu; this page publishes the displayed address, which is also the address UH prints as plain text at the foot of the FAQs page, and the divergence is recorded here rather than resolved. Second, the landing page's Resources section now labels uh.edu/provost/students/student-policies/honesty/faqs/ as the FAQs “for faculty” and points students to a different path, uh.edu/provost/policies-resources/honesty/faqs/, even though the page at the first address is headed “FAQs for Students” and is written in the second person to an accused student; this page continues to describe it as UH's student-facing FAQ because that is what the page itself says it is. Detection-inventory sweep re-run this date across named vendors and detector categories: no detector beyond the Turnitin institutional license, and no separate UH statement enabling or disabling its AI indicator, was located; iThenticate remains documented only for pre-submission checks of theses and dissertations, as this page already records. Still outstanding, unchanged from prior entries: the knowledge-base article “Turnitin's New AI Detector Score” (title confirmed, individual URL still not discoverable, nothing quoted), the provost's four process-flowchart PDFs, and the Acalog catalog entry at publications.uh.edu. Internet Archive captures: still pending. Save Page Now could not be reached from this run environment, whose fetching is restricted to addresses already surfaced in the run; capture URLs cannot be requested here and need an interactive session.

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