Louisiana State University.

What LSU's own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"The Advisor's function shall be to provide support, guidance, and advice to the Student or RSO during any SAA meeting or procedure." A scope line follows immediately: "If a Student is charged with a violation of behavioral misconduct that carries a potential penalty of suspension or expulsion, the Student has the right to be represented, at their expense, by an Advisor. The Advisor may fully participate during any disciplinary proceeding." The Code treats Academic Misconduct (§10.1) and Behavioral Misconduct (§10.2) as separate categories. Searched the Code in full — the §6.1 rights list, §6.3's rights before and during a hearing panel, §6.6 on the Advisor's role, §8.3 on Accountability Meetings and §8.4 on University Hearing Panels — for an equivalent full-participation provision covering academic misconduct; none was located. The general right stated at §6.1.G is to "be assisted by an Advisor in accordance with section 6.6." On recording: "The University will record the hearing and the recording shall serve as the official record of the UHP. Neither the Respondent nor any other participant in the UHP may record the hearing. The University will provide a copy of the recording to the Respondent upon request." — Code of Student Conduct, §6.1.G, §6.3.J, §6.6 and §8.4.L (effective August 1st, 2024; retrieved Aug 25, 2026) · Code of Student Conduct (PDF)

What follows on the record

"Violations of Academic Integrity, suspension, expulsion and/or any other Accountability action that separates the Student from the University is recorded on the Student's academic transcript maintained in the Office of the University Registrar unless otherwise stated in the Outcome." The Code repeats the point at the level of individual outcomes: a Warning "will not be recorded on the Student's academic transcript except in cases of Academic Integrity," and Disciplinary Probation "will not be recorded on the Student's academic transcript except in cases of Academic Integrity." On removal and retention: "Upon request, a notation on the Student's academic transcript will be removed at the completion of the Outcome period, except in cases of a suspension or expulsion," "A notation of expulsion or degree revocation from the University is never removed from a Student's academic transcript," and "Files for suspensions, expulsions, and violent offenses are maintained indefinitely. All other files are maintained for at least seven years." — Code of Student Conduct, §11.2 and the Code's Accountability Records section, which follows the appellate process (effective August 1st, 2024; retrieved Aug 25, 2026) · Code of Student Conduct (PDF)

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

The Code names artificial intelligence twice inside its academic-misconduct definitions (effective August 1st, 2024; retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

Source: Code of Student Conduct (PDF), §10.1. The Code lists eight rights for a charged student in §6.1, including "The presumption of innocence," "To refuse to comment or answer questions," "To present information and/or any Material Observer," and, before a hearing panel, "To schedule a time prior to the UHP hearing to inspect and review the information on which a Charge is based" and "To receive a list of all Material Observers to be called by the University at least seven (7) business days prior to a UHP."

There are two tracks, and they are not held to the same standard on the Code's own face. An Accountability Meeting is a meeting with a single Hearing Officer, whose Notice of Outcome must include "the Hearing Officer's explanation of how preponderance was met for any responsible policy violation(s)"; the Code adds that "An Accountability Meeting may not be used in cases where suspension, expulsion, or degree revocation is a possible outcome." A University Hearing Panel is convened where suspension or expulsion is possible. On the standard applied there, the Code says two different things in the same section, and both are reproduced here without a determination of which controls:

Source: Code of Student Conduct (PDF), §8.4. Both sentences sit under the heading "8.4 University Hearing Panel (UHP)."

On appeals, the Code states that "A written appeal form must be submitted no later than ten (10) business days after the Accountability Meeting Outcome or UHP Outcome is emailed to the Student, RSO or Complainant," that the form "must identify the specific actions or Outcomes being contested" and include at least one of the stated grounds, and that "When a timely appeal is made, the Outcome will be suspended until the appeal decision is issued." The Student Conduct Appeals Committee "will meet in closed session," with a quorum of three to five voting members "including at least one (1) faculty member and one (1) student." Among the stated grounds is "Substantiated bias or personal prejudice by a hearing officer or UHP panelist that precluded them from fairly and impartially hearing the case."

Two further first-party points. The Code states that SAA "may delay registration for classes or withhold the issuance of an official transcript, grade, diploma, or degree to a Student alleged to have violated a rule or regulation of the University who has not completed an Outcome." And the conduct office publishes, as syllabus-template guidance to instructors, what it expects the consequences to be: "For undergraduate students, the outcome will range from failing the assignment to failing the class along with disciplinary probation. For graduate students, a first violation leads to deferred suspension for at least two semesters and a failing grade in the course." Source: Academic & Behavioral Misconduct — Student Advocacy & Accountability (retrieved Aug 25, 2026). That is instructor-facing text, quoted because it describes the exposure a student faces. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-25 — Page created. Every quotation on this page was captured first-party this date from the lsu.edu addresses linked beside it; nothing is paraphrase-pending. The Code of Student Conduct PDF and the Faculty Senate Generative AI guidelines PDF were both read end to end and their own section numbering is what this page cites. Source page dates as displayed: the Code states "Effective August 1st, 2024" and lists its revision history ending "Revised August 2024"; the GAI guidelines state an original version of 10/28/2025, a revised version of 12/4/2025, and Faculty Senate endorsement on Dec 4, 2025; the GROK Turnitin article states Last Updated 1/27/2025. The conduct office's faculty misconduct page and Code landing page display no date of their own, which is stated beside each rather than glossed.

2026-08-25 — Detection sweep recorded. Searched on lsu.edu: Turnitin including its SimCheck and Originality product names, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity; the GROK knowledge base including its Moodle and Remote Proctoring categories; the conduct office's faculty and student pages; the Faculty Senate's Generative AI Committee materials; and the graduate and research pipeline. Documented in institutional use: Turnitin Feedback Studio with Originality, Similarity and AI writing detection in Moodle, and iThenticate with AI writing detection on the research side. Came back empty on lsu.edu in this review: Copyleaks, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback and Grammarly Authorship. GROK maintains a Remote Proctoring category, but no proctoring vendor was confirmed first-party in this review and none is named on the page — an unresolved thread for a later review rather than an absence claimed at a scope that was not searched.

2026-08-25 — Step-2 disqualification check, and the trap the queue warned about. Not a disqualification: LSU licenses Turnitin AI writing detection, its IT knowledge base lists the feature, and its own conduct office tells instructors detection tools exist and that Turnitin "can also assist in AI detection." The Faculty Senate–endorsed guidelines bar reliance on detector output alone to report or penalize — a corroboration-required rule of the same family as unt's and gsu's, not a disabling and not a recommendation against use. The pre-screening note recorded in the pipeline warned that LSU Libraries' AI guide links other institutions' anti-detector statements (Vanderbilt, Pittsburgh) and that a search summary had misread those as LSU policy; that error was not repeated — nothing on this page rests on the Libraries guide, and no third-party institution's statement is attributed to LSU.

2026-08-25 — Findings recorded, not resolved. (1) SUBSTANTIVE, and the reason section 02 quotes both sentences: §8.4 of the Code states that a University Hearing Panel "will utilize the Clear and Convincing Standard for cases involving a possible Suspension or Expulsion," and then, five items later in the same section, that "Responsibility will be determined using a standard of a preponderance of information, or more likely than not." Both are reproduced; no determination is made about which governs. (2) SCOPE: the Advisor's full-participation right — opening and closing statements, examining and cross-examining — is written for behavioral misconduct carrying suspension or expulsion. Academic Misconduct is a separate category in §10.1, and no equivalent provision for it was located; the general §6.1.G right is to be "assisted by" an Advisor in the support-and-guidance sense of §6.6. Recorded as a scope gap, not smoothed over. Also noted and not used as an independence finding: §6.6 states SAA itself "can assist in partnering a Student or RSO with an Advisor," which places that route inside the office administering the process. (3) Transcript exposure at LSU is broader than on most built pages: a Warning and Disciplinary Probation are each stated not to be recorded on the transcript "except in cases of Academic Integrity." (4) The GROK Turnitin article's product description and its own EULA terms describe different scopes for iThenticate; both are quoted. (5) The GROK article carries LSU's "may contain dated material" banner, which is stated on the page rather than omitted.

2026-08-25 — Deliberate omissions. LSU Libraries' generative-AI research guide was not used, for the provenance reason above. MikeGPT, LSU's own generative-AI assistant, is named in the Faculty Senate guidelines but is an assistant rather than a detector and is not presented as one. The conduct office's downloadable AI PowerPoint and its Moodle academic-integrity module were not opened, and nothing is attributed to them. Superseded Codes of Student Conduct remain reachable on lsu.edu (a 2018 PDF among them) and are neither quoted nor linked. Subreddit demand scan not run (outside this run's research method). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-25). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-25 — Boundary review before hand-off, corrections recorded. An independent read of this page against the site's editorial boundaries produced five changes, all made the same date. (1) A passage ranked the Faculty Senate guidelines against LSU's other rules in this page's own voice ("guidance rather than policy… not a Board or Presidential policy"). That is the page picking a winner between documents, which it may not do; it now quotes the document's own statement of its relationship to LSU policy and stops. (2) The source-map row for the Ombuds Office described it as "independent of the conduct office" without quotation marks, adopting a characterisation the docket row correctly quotes; the row now quotes. (3) The docket's assertion that the two offices are separate is now stated as the structural fact it rests on. (4) The scope finding about the Advisor right now names what was searched before concluding no equivalent provision exists. (5) Gradescope's "AI-assisted grading" was classified by this page as a grading aid rather than a detector; it now reports LSU's own description and claims nothing further. No quotation was altered.

2026-08-27 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; no change found. The GROK "Turnitin: LSU Overview & Products" article (still stating Last Updated 1/27/2025 and still carrying LSU's own "may contain dated material" banner) was re-fetched and every quoted passage remains verbatim — the Turnitin products list, the "AI writing detection: Identifies content generated by AI writing tools such as ChatGPT" line, the Contract Cheating Monitor line, and the iThenticate description together with the narrower iThenticate EULA grant. The Faculty Senate Generative AI Committee guidelines PDF (still "Endorsed by Faculty Senate on Dec 4, 2025," original version 10/28/2025, revised 12/4/2025) still carries verbatim the load-bearing rule that "faculty must not rely on outputs from such tools alone to report or penalize students on any suspected disallowed use of GAI," and the "None of these guidelines are intended to override or circumvent any of the LSU policies or standards" statement. Detection-inventory sweep re-run: Turnitin (Feedback Studio with Originality, Similarity, AI writing detection) and iThenticate remain the documented detectors; no additional institutional detector was located first-party, and GROK's Remote Proctoring category still names no confirmed vendor. Not separately re-fetched this pass and retained as last verified 2026-08-25: the conduct office faculty misconduct page, the Code of Student Conduct PDF, and the Code landing page — flagged for the next pass. Office and ombuds findings unchanged. Archive capture: Save Page Now was unreachable from this environment this date (endpoint blocked); captures remain pending. 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.