Iowa State University.

What Iowa State's own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"Students have the right to have any two persons of their choosing present at any meeting, conference, or hearing during the disciplinary process to serve as advisors, which can include an attorney." A second sentence bounds the role: "During conduct hearings, the role of an advisor is limited to advising the student; advisors cannot actively participate in the process." — Office of Student Conduct, FAQ, "Do I need to bring a lawyer to my student conduct conference?" (page carries no published date; retrieved Aug 31, 2026) · Office of Student Conduct FAQ. On recording: no provision was located in this review stating whether a student may record a conduct conference or hearing. The Catalog's Academic Conduct chapter addresses recording of classes, not of disciplinary proceedings, and the Student Code of Conduct itself (policy.iastate.edu/policy/SDR) could not be retrieved from this environment on this date, so the question is recorded as unresolved rather than answered.

What follows on the record

"Unless a student is suspended or expelled, individual student disciplinary records are kept confidential, and nothing from them appears on a student's academic transcript. If a student is suspended or expelled, a notation will be placed on the transcript that the student was dropped due to disciplinary action and is not eligible to enroll at Iowa State." On retention and disclosure, the Catalog states: "Student records concerning academic dishonesty are maintained in the Dean of Students Office for a period of seven years, after which the file records are purged," and ISU's own Academic Integrity Tutorial states that "A disciplinary record could be requested in a background check and impact a student's ability to participate in certain campus programs, gain admission to other institutions or graduate programs, or certain employment opportunities." — Office of Student Conduct FAQ; Iowa State University Catalog 2026-2027, Academic Conduct; ISU Academic Integrity Tutorial, University Policies and Processes (retrieved Aug 31, 2026) · FAQ · Catalog — Academic Conduct · Academic Integrity Tutorial

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

On the standard of proof and the sequence of steps, ISU's Academic Integrity Tutorial, published by the Dean of Students Office (retrieved Aug 31, 2026), states:

Source: University Policies and Processes — ISU Academic Integrity Tutorial. The instructor-facing side of the same sequence is published by the Office of Student Conduct and by the Catalog; it is quoted here because it describes the process a student experiences (Catalog 2026-2027, Academic Conduct, retrieved Aug 31, 2026):

Source: Academic Conduct — Iowa State University Catalog. The Office of Student Conduct's own pages add, in paraphrase of details located but not otherwise quoted here: the notice a student receives is titled a "Notice of Alleged Code of Conduct Violation" and states the alleged violations, the case classification, the staff member handling the case and a deadline for scheduling a conduct conference; cases are classified as separation-level (those that may result in suspension or expulsion) or non-separation-level; sanctions run from a disciplinary reprimand up to expulsion, with the full range set out in sections 7.2.9 and 7.3.2 of the Student Code of Conduct; and the appeals process, with its specific criteria, is set out in section 8 of that Code, which varies with the type of hearing held. Those Code sections were not retrievable from this environment on this date and are cited by section number as the office cites them, not quoted. Where a student does not schedule a conference, the office states the case "may be decided in your absence without your input" and that a registration hold may follow. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-28 — Page created. All quotations captured this date, first-party, from the celt.iastate.edu, research.iastate.edu, studentconduct.dso.iastate.edu, catalog.iastate.edu, iastate.pressbooks.pub and ombuds.iastate.edu pages linked beside them. DETECTION SWEEP RECORDED. Named-vendor sweep run against Iowa State's own domain for Turnitin (including the SimCheck and Originality product names), Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity: Turnitin and iThenticate returned first-party ISU pages; Respondus returned a first-party ISU listing but only as Lockdown Browser and an Exam Authoring Tool, with no AI-writing-detection claim made by ISU; every other vendor on the list came back empty. Category sweep run across CELT's published Canvas learning-technology list, the graduate and research writing pipeline (Office of the Vice President for Research), the proctoring and exam stack as CELT lists it, the Office of Student Conduct's faculty and student pages, and the university Catalog's Academic Conduct chapter — no additional detector surfaced in any of them. FINDINGS. Turnitin (DraftCoach, Gradescope, Originality) is listed by CELT among tools "vetted" by the ISU LMS Enterprise Team for Canvas, described in plagiarism-detection terms; iThenticate is licensed by the OVPR and scoped by ISU itself to theses, journal articles, dissertations and grant proposals, with the page stating in its own words that it "is not recommended for undergraduate homework" and that a separate package serves teaching — a scope split stated on the page rather than collapsed into campus-wide use. ABSENCE STATED AT SCOPE: no ISU page located in this review states whether Turnitin's AI writing indicator is enabled or disabled for ISU submissions; that narrower question is recorded as unanswered rather than resolved in either direction. NOT A STEP-2 DISQUALIFICATION: nothing located says ISU has disabled AI detection or recommends against it across the board; the Office of Student Conduct's language is a sole-reliance caution ("rather than relying on AI-detection tools alone") inside guidance that expressly contemplates referrals involving suspected unauthorized AI use, and CELT's central AI page names no detector at all. OMBUDS TRAP CHECKED AND FAILED FOR THIS PAGE'S PRIMARY READER: ISU's Ombuds Office states on its own home page that it serves "graduate and professional students, postdocs, staff, and faculty," and its Students page states that undergraduates "should contact the resources that are available to them through the Dean of Students office"; the office's own home page repeats that "The Ombuds Office does not serve undergraduate students." The docket therefore records the office as available to graduate and professional students and unavailable to undergraduates, rather than listing it as an independent resource for every reader. UNCAPTURED THIS DATE, recorded rather than paraphrased from memory: the Student Code of Conduct at policy.iastate.edu/policy/SDR (server returned "Request Rejected" to plain fetches), ISU's ServiceNow IT knowledge base articles including the CELT Turnitin article, the Inside Iowa State staff news site, the ISUComm Canvas support pages, and the events calendar — all listed by title and link where cited, with nothing quoted from them. The Box-hosted Office of Student Conduct guidance on AI referrals is client-rendered and is listed by title and link only; reading it is the single most likely source of a future revision to section 01. Section 02's paraphrase paragraph (notice title, separation vs non-separation classification, sanction and appeal section numbers) is drawn from the Office of Student Conduct FAQ and is captured first-party; the Code sections it names are cited as the office cites them and are paraphrase-pending verification against the Code itself. Recording of a conduct conference or hearing: no provision located, absence stated rather than inferred. DELIBERATE OMISSIONS: no lawsuit, news or petition material is reproduced here; the Iowa State Daily and other non-institutional coverage was excluded as not first-party; no detector was attributed to ISU that ISU does not name on its own pages. Subreddit demand scan not run (outside this run's research method). Automated research pass. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-28). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-31 — First source re-verification since publication; automated pass, no human review claimed. Every quoted source re-fetched and found unchanged, each quotation verbatim: CELT Technology Tools (the vetted-tools sentence and the TurnItIn DraftCoach/Gradescope/Originality description), the OVPR iThenticate page (all three scope sentences; article:modified_time still 2026-08-21), the Office of Student Conduct Faculty and Staff Resources page (the "not inherently academic misconduct" / "rather than relying on AI-detection tools alone" caution and the permitted/restricted/prohibited sentence), the CELT AI in Teaching page (still names no detector), the Office of Student Conduct FAQ (two-advisor and transcript-notation quotations), the Catalog Academic Conduct chapter (seven-year retention, N-grade and drop-course quotations), the Academic Integrity Tutorial (preponderance, notice-of-charges and background-check quotations), and the Ombuds home page (graduate-and-professional-only service line, undergraduate-exclusion line, and the 515-294-0165 / ombuds@iastate.edu contacts). Retrieval dates advanced to Aug 31. Detection inventory (named-vendor + category sweeps) re-run across CELT, OVPR, the Office of Student Conduct pages and the Catalog: no detector beyond Turnitin and iThenticate located, and no first-party statement on whether Turnitin's AI writing indicator is enabled — the stated absence stands. TWO SOURCE-SIDE CHANGES, both noted in place: (1) the Student Code of Conduct at policy.iastate.edu/policy/SDR no longer returns "Request Rejected" — it now serves a 200 — but the policy text is client-rendered and still not machine-readable to a plain fetch, so the Code sections (5.1, 7.2.9, 7.3.2, section 8) remain listed by title and link only and the section-number paraphrases in section 02 remain pending a manual read; (2) the Ombuds Office's former /students subpage now returns 404, so the docket wording no longer cites it — the undergraduate-exclusion statement it carried is also on the office home page, which was re-verified, and the source-map row is updated. The Box-hosted OSC AI-referral guidance remains client-rendered and unquoted. No captures requested this pass.

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