University of Kansas.
- Detection status
- Turnitin AI writing detection documented in Canvas by the Center for Teaching Excellence (used with caution, not disabled); iThenticate licensed separately through KU single sign-on; KU states it has no specific policy on generative AI in teaching and learning
- Office in these sources
- No central academic-integrity office was located; academic misconduct is processed by the school or College offering the course. For the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences: College Undergraduate Academic Services · Strong Hall Room 109, 1450 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045 · 785-864-3500 · collegeundergrad@ku.edu
- Ombuds or advocacy office
- KU Ombuds Office — "a confidential, impartial, informal, and independent office on campus where members of the campus community can discuss issues they may be facing as a student, staff, or faculty member" per its own page, which states it serves "the KU Lawrence and KU Edwards campus communities." Dole HDC Suite 3079, 1000 Sunnyside Ave, Lawrence, KS 66045 · 785-864-7261 · ombuds@ku.edu · ombuds.ku.edu
- Sources last checked
- Aug 31, 2026
Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.
KU's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. KU's documents sit in layers: the University Senate Rules and Regulations (USRR) define academic misconduct and its sanctions university-wide; the College and the individual schools publish their own hearing procedures under that authority, so the procedure that applies depends on which unit offers the course; the Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities governs non-academic misconduct and is a different track; and the Center for Teaching Excellence publishes the instructor-facing guidance on Turnitin's AI detector. KU's Center for Teaching Excellence states that the university "does not have a specific policy about use of generative artificial intelligence in teaching and learning," and USRR 2.7.4 places the rules for a given course with its instructor, so a syllabus may add rules this page does not carry. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case; confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.
AI detection is documented at KU, with a published caution about its weight
The Center for Teaching Excellence (CTE), KU's teaching-support centre, publishes a standing page in its AI Resources & Guidance series describing Turnitin's AI detector as a tool KU instructors have available in Canvas (page undated on its face; retrieved Aug 31, 2026):
Source: Careful use of AI detectors — Center for Teaching Excellence. The same page records the accuracy caveats KU itself puts beside the tool: that Turnitin "says its AI detection tool was ‘verified in a controlled lab environment’ and renders scores with 98% confidence" while it "appears to have a margin of error of plus or minus 15 percentage points," so "a score of 50 could actually be anywhere from 35 to 65"; that the tool "requires ‘long-form prose text’ and doesn't work with lists, bullet points, or text of less than a few hundred words"; and that it "can also be fooled by a mix of original and AI-produced prose." CTE also reproduces the finding of a study it cites that AI detectors "are far more likely to flag the work of non-native English speakers than the work of native speakers."
This is not a step-2 disqualification. KU's published position is caution about the weight the score carries, not deactivation: CTE's own text describes the detector as available on Canvas, describes what an instructor may do after a flag, and states of detectors generally that "They still have a place, but they provide information, not indictments" (Maintaining academic integrity in the AI era, retrieved Aug 31, 2026). No KU page located in this review states that Turnitin's AI writing indicator has been disabled for KU's Canvas instance, and no page located states that it is enabled by default either; that narrower question is not answered in the sources reviewed, and is stated here rather than resolved by inference.
CTE's earlier blog treatment of the same tool, published under a date, gives the instructor-facing sequence and one fact a student would not otherwise learn — that the score is not shown to them (posted April 19, 2023; retrieved Aug 31, 2026):
Source: How should we use AI detectors with student writing? — Center for Teaching Excellence. This is instructor-facing, quoted because it describes the process a student experiences. Provenance note: CTE is a KU unit and this is KU's own page, but the passages above are CTE's guidance to instructors, not a university regulation; USRR, quoted in section 02, is the regulation, and it says nothing about detection software.
A second tool, differently scoped. KU IT's Knowledge Base publishes a support article for iThenticate — the Turnitin-family similarity checker normally used for research manuscripts, theses and dissertations rather than undergraduate coursework — documenting that KU staff and researchers reach it through KU's single sign-on (article published Nov 26, 2024; modified July 9, 2026; retrieved Aug 31, 2026):
Source: iThenticate — Support Information, KU IT Knowledge Base. The article documents that KU provides access to iThenticate; it does not state which populations or submission pipelines it covers, and no KU page located in this review states that iThenticate's AI-writing indicator is enabled for KU. Both limits are stated rather than filled in.
What the sweep did not find. No page on KU's own domains was located in this review naming Copyleaks, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, or Examity as a tool KU deploys. KU IT's Knowledge Base and software store document Respondus — the Respondus Exam Creator, an exam-authoring tool — and no first-party page located in this review documents Respondus Monitor, its proctoring product, as deployed at KU; that is stated at the scope searched rather than as a finding that no proctoring exists. KU's list of integrated tools in Canvas, which is the LMS integration catalogue this sweep would ordinarily read, is published inside Canvas itself at canvas.ku.edu and requires a KU login, so it could not be read in this review; the KU Educational Technology pages that formerly carried tool-by-tool guidance at teachtech.ku.edu now redirect to the Canvas Help site, which links the login-gated list rather than restating it. The absence above is therefore stated at the scope actually searched: the named vendors on KU's public domains, the KU IT Knowledge Base and software store, the Center for Teaching Excellence's AI guidance series, the Canvas Help site, and the policy library.
What KU's own documents say about how cases proceed
- Who may be present
- "The charged student and/or charging instructor may request that an observer/advisor or witness(es) attend the hearing. The College scheduling officer must be notified in writing 10 calendar days prior to the hearing of any observer/advisor and/or witness(es) that will be attending the hearing. An observer (a supportive family member, advisor, or friend) may not directly participate in the hearing." On attorneys, the same procedure states: "Typically, students do not bring legal counsel. However, if the student has an attorney, University General Counsel will be contacted and asked to attend the hearing also." — Academic Misconduct Policies and Procedures, Hearing Panel and Appeals (College of Liberal Arts & Sciences; page undated on its face, retrieved Aug 31, 2026) · College Undergraduate Academic Services. Scope: this is the College's procedure, and KU's other schools publish their own under USRR 2.7.2. On recording, the same page states: "All hearings must be audio recorded." That is the College recording the hearing; no provision was located stating whether a student may record independently. The Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities guarantees "a fair hearing, which shall include confrontation of information against the student or organization and the assistance of persons of the student's or organization's own choosing," but that guarantee sits in the Code's non-academic misconduct track, not the academic-misconduct procedure this row addresses.
- What follows on the record
- "Transcript Citation for Academic Misconduct: The student's transcript will state that the student has been cited for academic misconduct. This sanction will include a determination of the final grade in the course. This grade may be an ‘F.’ The statement will be permanent unless the student applies to the University Provost for removal of the statement and the application is granted." Suspension and expulsion carry their own transcript statements on the same terms. — University Senate Rules and Regulations 2.7.5 (published Mar 13, 2025; modified Aug 5, 2026; retrieved Aug 31, 2026) · USRR. On where the record is kept: "Written records of the charge will be maintained in the Office of the Provost using the Charge of Academic Misconduct form provided by the College. All hearings must be audio recorded. Audio recordings of misconduct hearings will be kept by the unit conducting the hearing for sixty days following the decision of the hearing panel unless the decision is appealed in which case the recordings will be retained until the student's final appeal is completed." (College procedure, retrieved Aug 31, 2026). Not stated in the sources reviewed: whether an academic-misconduct finding is disclosed to graduate programs, employers, or licensing boards, and how long the charge record itself is retained. The Student Records Policy and the Code's retention rule — non-academic records "not resulting in suspension or expulsion are retained for seven years," those "involving suspension or expulsion are retained indefinitely" — were searched and address non-academic misconduct records; no equivalent retention period for academic-misconduct records was located.
The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.
From the University Senate Rules and Regulations, Article II (published Mar 13, 2025; modified Aug 5, 2026; retrieved Aug 31, 2026):
Source: University Senate Rules and Regulations. A numbering divergence in KU's own sources is reproduced here rather than resolved: the live USRR places Academic Misconduct at Article II, Section 7 (2.7.1 onward), while CTE's AI-guidance page links to it as #art2sect6 and the College's procedure cites "USRR 2.6.2" for the units' authority to run their own procedures. Both citations point at the same body of text under KU's current numbering.
The College of Liberal Arts & Sciences procedure, which is the unit-level document for the largest share of KU undergraduates, adds the shape of the hearing (retrieved Aug 31, 2026): department or unit hearings "will be scheduled ONLY if the student wishes to deny the charge and/or appeal the recommended sanction," and "If the student admits to the charge and does not wish to appeal, the sanction may be imposed immediately." College-level hearings are reserved for the heavier sanctions — transcript citation, suspension from a course, suspension, expulsion — and the panel consists of "a minimum of three faculty members." The hearing "will be held even if the charged student fails to appear." On review: "If either party to a charge of academic misconduct or to a grade appeal involving a charge of academic misconduct is dissatisfied with the resolution of the charge, he or she may seek review by the Judicial Board. All appeals must be made within 30 calendar days of the initial decision." No evidentiary standard — preponderance or otherwise — was located in USRR Article II or in the College's procedure in this review; the College's page states only that the panel "will determine the validity of the charge of academic misconduct." Judicial Board proceedings under USRR Article VI are audio recorded, with access "restricted to the parties, their authorized representatives, the members of the hearing panel," and appeal panel members. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.
Where the documents live
| Document | Location |
|---|---|
| University Senate Rules and Regulations (academic misconduct, sanctions, transcript citation; Judicial Board procedure) | services.ku.edu — USRR |
| Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities (Student Code — non-academic misconduct track, records retention) | policy.ku.edu — Student Code |
| Academic Misconduct Policies and Procedures (College of Liberal Arts & Sciences: hearings, observer/advisor, appeals, records) | collegeundergrad.ku.edu — Academic Misconduct |
| Careful use of AI detectors (CTE; Turnitin AI detector in Canvas and its stated limits) | cte.ku.edu — Careful use of AI detectors |
| How should we use AI detectors with student writing? (CTE, April 19, 2023; students do not see the score) | cte.ku.edu — How should we use AI detectors |
| Maintaining academic integrity in the AI era (CTE; KU has no specific generative-AI policy) | cte.ku.edu — Maintaining academic integrity |
| iThenticate — Support Information (KU IT Knowledge Base; access through KU single sign-on) | services.ku.edu — iThenticate |
| Integrated Tools in Canvas (KU's LMS tool list — requires a KU login; not readable in this review) | canvas.ku.edu — Integrated Tools |
| College Undergraduate Academic Services (office processing College academic-misconduct cases) | Strong Hall Room 109, 1450 Jayhawk Blvd., Lawrence, KS 66045 · 785-864-3500 · collegeundergrad@ku.edu (from the office's own pages, retrieved Aug 31, 2026) |
| KU Ombuds Office | ombuds.ku.edu · Resources for Students · Dole HDC Suite 3079, 1000 Sunnyside Ave, Lawrence, KS 66045 · 785-864-7261 · ombuds@ku.edu |
| Legal Services for Students (student-fee-funded law office on the Lawrence campus) | legalservices.ku.edu · 2030 Burge Union, 1565 Irving Hill Rd., Lawrence, KS 66045 · 785-864-5665 · legals@ku.edu |
| Student Records Policy (record access and disclosure) | services.ku.edu — Student Records Policy |
Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.
Revision history of this page
2026-08-28 — Page created. All quotations captured this date first-party from the cte.ku.edu, services.ku.edu (KU Policy Library and KU IT Knowledge Base), collegeundergrad.ku.edu, ombuds.ku.edu and legalservices.ku.edu pages linked beside them; USRR was captured as a plain-text KB article (published Mar 13, 2025, modified Aug 5, 2026, per its own metadata) and read for the specific provisions rather than summarized. DETECTION SWEEP RUN AND RECORDED. Named-vendor sweep across KU's public domains: Turnitin — FOUND, documented first-party by the Center for Teaching Excellence as available in Canvas with a published caution about its weight; iThenticate — FOUND, documented first-party by the KU IT Knowledge Base as reachable through KU single sign-on, scope of use not stated by KU; Respondus — FOUND only as the Respondus Exam Creator (exam authoring) in KU IT materials, with no first-party documentation of Respondus Monitor proctoring located; Copyleaks, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Examity, and Turnitin SimCheck — ALL CAME BACK EMPTY on KU's own domains. Category sweep: CTE's AI Resources & Guidance series (found the Turnitin guidance), the KU IT Knowledge Base and service catalogue (found iThenticate and Respondus Exam Creator), the KU Policy Library (no detection tool named in any policy located), the Canvas Help site, and the graduate/thesis pipeline (no separate KU-published dissertation detection workflow located beyond the iThenticate article). The Canvas "Integrated Tools" list — the LMS integration catalogue that would ordinarily close this sweep — is published inside Canvas behind a KU login and COULD NOT BE READ; the former teachtech.ku.edu tool pages now redirect to canvashelp.ku.edu, which links that gated list rather than restating it. That gap is why section 01 states its absence at the scope actually searched rather than as a campus-wide negative. NOT A STEP-2 DISQUALIFICATION: KU's published position is caution about the weight a detector score carries, not deactivation — CTE's own pages describe the tool as available on Canvas, describe what an instructor may do after a flag, and state that detectors "still have a place, but they provide information, not indictments." Two narrower absences are stated on the page rather than resolved: no KU page located states whether Turnitin's AI writing indicator is enabled or disabled for KU's Canvas instance, and no KU page located states whether iThenticate's AI-writing indicator is enabled for KU. OMBUDS TRAP CHECKED AND PASSED: the KU Ombuds Office's own home page describes it as "confidential, impartial, informal, and independent," states it serves students, staff and faculty across "the KU Lawrence and KU Edwards campus communities," and publishes a dedicated Resources for Students page — it is not faculty-and-staff-only, not graduate-only, not a single school's office, and not housed inside the office that hears misconduct cases (USRR Article V establishes it as an independent full-time position reporting to the Provost and University Senate Executive Committee). KUMC's separate Office of the Student Ombuds serves the Medical Center campuses and was deliberately omitted as out of scope for this page's Lawrence/Edwards reader. DIVERGENCE REPRODUCED, NOT RESOLVED: the live USRR numbers Academic Misconduct as Article II Section 7 (2.7.x), while CTE links to it as #art2sect6 and the College procedure cites "USRR 2.6.2"; the page states both citations rather than silently correcting either. SCOPE LINES DRAWN DELIBERATELY: the who-may-be-present row quotes the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences procedure and says so, because KU's other schools publish their own procedures under USRR 2.7.2 (a School of Professional Studies PDF and school-level pages for Journalism and Chemical & Petroleum Engineering were seen in search and are not quoted here, since the College procedure is the one governing the largest undergraduate population and quoting a second unit's rules beside it would imply a uniformity KU does not publish); and the Student Code's "assistance of persons of the student's or organization's own choosing" is flagged as belonging to the non-academic track rather than presented as an academic-misconduct right. NO EVIDENTIARY STANDARD LOCATED: neither USRR Article II nor the College procedure states preponderance or any other standard, and the page says so rather than importing one from peer institutions. NO CENTRAL ACADEMIC-INTEGRITY OFFICE LOCATED: KU processes academic misconduct through the school or College offering the course with records filed in the Office of the Provost, so the docket names the College office and states the absence rather than substituting a university switchboard. DISCLOSURE ABSENCE STATED: nothing located states whether an academic-misconduct finding is disclosed to graduate programs, employers, or licensing boards, and the seven-year / indefinite retention rule found in the Student Code is scoped to non-academic records. Paraphrase pending verification: none — every quotation on this page was captured as text from a first-party page in this run. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Automated research pass. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-28).
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: CTE's "Careful use of AI detectors" (the caution, "information, not an indictment," the gather-information sentence, and the accuracy caveats — controlled-lab, ±15-point margin, long-form-prose limit, non-native-speaker finding), CTE's "Maintaining academic integrity in the AI era" (the "still have a place… information, not indictments" line and the "does not have a specific policy about use of generative artificial intelligence" statement), CTE's "How should we use AI detectors" blog (April 19, 2023; "Students don't see the scores"), the KU IT Knowledge Base iThenticate article (both single-sign-on sentences; article:published_time still 2024-11-26, modified_time still 2026-07-09), the USRR KB article (Article II misconduct definition, the instructor-sanction and Judicial-Board-review passages, the instructor-rules sentence, and the 2.7.5 Transcript Citation language; article:published_time still 2025-03-13, modified_time still 2026-08-05), the College of Liberal Arts & Sciences procedure (observer/advisor and attorney rules, "All hearings must be audio recorded," the hearing-shape and Office-of-the-Provost records passages, and the 30-calendar-day appeal window), and the KU Ombuds home page (the confidential/impartial/informal/independent description, the Lawrence/Edwards service scope, and the 785-864-7261 / ombuds@ku.edu contacts). Retrieval dates advanced to Aug 31. Detection inventory (named-vendor + category sweeps) re-run across CTE's AI series, the KU IT Knowledge Base and the College and policy pages: Turnitin and iThenticate remain the only detectors documented first-party, Respondus appears only as the Exam Creator, and the Canvas "Integrated Tools" list remains login-gated — so the section-01 absences (whether Turnitin's or iThenticate's AI indicator is enabled for KU) still stand as stated at the scope searched. No source changed since publication; nothing on the page was altered beyond the review dates. No captures requested this pass.
Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.