University of Memphis.

What the University of Memphis's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

“The University will provide the complainant and respondent with the same opportunities to have others present during any disciplinary proceeding, including the opportunity to be accompanied to any related meeting or proceeding by the advisor of their choice, who may be, but is not required to be, an attorney.” On recording, the same document states: “The University shall be responsible for making a record (e.g., digital recording) of a SCB Hearing. […] neither the Complainant nor the Respondent may record the hearing using any other method of recording. The University will provide a copy of the record to the Complainant and the Respondent upon request.” — Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities, Sections .09 and .11 (no edition date displayed in the document; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities (PDF)

What follows on the record

“The University maintains student disciplinary records separately from student academic records.” On retention, the same document states: “OSA permanently maintains student disciplinary records for students who have received the following sanctions […]: suspension; expulsion; withholding of degree; or revocation of degree. OSA expunges student disciplinary records for other students who have completed the disciplinary process seven (7) years after graduation, or the last date of enrollment, or after the date the decision becomes final, whichever is later, except as prohibited by law or a University litigation hold.” — Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities, Disciplinary Holds and Records (no edition date displayed in the document; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities (PDF)

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

On disclosure of that record, the Student Code states that after a student is no longer enrolled, “OSA will disclose a student's disciplinary records to persons outside of OSA only if the student requests that the information be shared (including, but not limited to, for the purpose of transferring schools, attending graduate or professional school, to seek admission into a State Bar, completing pre-employment background screenings, etc.),” and adds that OSA “will disclose disciplinary records as required by state or federal law (e.g., subpoena, judicial order).” The Code names no transcript notation for academic misconduct; what it attaches to the transcript is a hold. “No diploma shall be given and no grades, academic credit, or degree shall be awarded to a student who has been placed on disciplinary hold. A letter from OSA will accompany the transcript of a student who is requesting their transcripts be sent to another academic institution while having a disciplinary hold detailing that the student has a disciplinary hold.” Source: Student Code of Rights and Responsibilities (PDF) (no edition date displayed in the document; retrieved Aug 27, 2026).

The Student Code also states what a Notice of Educational Conference contains, including “Notice of the Respondent's right to be assisted and/or supported by an Advisor throughout the student conduct process, in accordance with Section .12, including information about the role of an Advisor.” On the standard applied at a Student Conduct Board hearing, it states that the board “will decide by majority vote whether by preponderance of the evidence the Respondent violated the Behavioral Expectations and Responsibilities,” and that “The Conduct Educator bears the burden of presenting information demonstrating that it is more likely than not that the Respondent violated a Behavioral Expectation or Responsibility.” It adds that “Neither the Complainant nor the Respondent is required to present information or witnesses concerning the Respondent's alleged misconduct,” and that the board “shall not draw an inference adverse to the Conduct Educator, the Complainant, or the Respondent” if they choose not to.

The Office of Student Accountability's instructor-facing process page describes the earlier, course-level stage (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) — quoted here because it describes the process a student experiences:

Source: Academic Misconduct — Office of Student Accountability. Located but not captured verbatim here: the Student Code's appeal provisions, which describe a Notice of Appeal that is “procedurally valid only if it has been fully completed, timely submitted to OSA, does not contain information outside of the record of the SCB Hearing, and does not contain a ground for appeal not listed in Section .10(4),” and an Appeal Reader appointed by OSA from a trained pool; the grounds themselves and the filing window sit in Section .10 of the Code, which is linked above and best read in full. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-27 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date, first-party, from the memphis.edu and libguides.memphis.edu pages linked beside them; the Student Code was read as the PDF the Office of Student Accountability publishes. Detection sweep. Named-vendor sweep across 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. Category sweep across the UofM's Canvas integration catalogue, its umTech service and solutions pages, its Canvas IgniteAI feature documentation, the Graduate School's thesis and dissertation pipeline, and the University Libraries' academic-integrity and AI research guides. Found: Turnitin only — plagiarism detection plus AI writing detection, integrated with Canvas, listed campus-funded and campus-wide, read by the instructor in the Turnitin Feedback Studio via SpeedGrader. Came back empty: Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio and Examity returned no first-party UofM page in this review. Respondus is documented at the UofM only as StudyMate Author, with no proctoring or AI-writing product named. Packback appears in the Canvas integration table with no detection claim attached to it by the UofM. Canvas IgniteAI is documented without any AI-writing-detection feature. No separate detector was located for the graduate thesis and dissertation pipeline; no iThenticate deployment was found, and the absence is stated at that scope. Deliberate omissions. No vendor is named on the institution's behalf beyond what its own pages state. Third-party trackers and vendor customer lists were not used. Divergence reproduced without resolving: the umTech student-facing academic-integrity page still describes Turnitin submission through “eCourseware”, the UofM's former LMS, while UM3D documents the Canvas integration; both are the institution's own pages and the difference is left as the institution publishes it. Ombuds. The only office the UofM titles ombuds is the Faculty Ombudsperson, which serves faculty and directs student conflicts elsewhere; it is recorded as excluding this page's reader rather than listed as available. No student ombuds was located. The student advocates published by the Office of the President are recorded in the institution's own words, without any characterization of confidentiality or independence, because the UofM publishes none. Paraphrase pending verification: none — every source on this page was captured as text on this date. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-27).

2026-08-29 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; an automated source re-verification, not a human editorial review. Every first-party source linked here was fetched again and compared against the page: the Turnitin spotlight and Canvas integration pages, the Canvas integrations catalogue (Turnitin campus-funded, campus-wide), the Respondus/StudyMate page, the Canvas IgniteAI page, the University Libraries plagiarism-and-AI guide (still Last Updated Jul 28, 2026), the GenAI syllabus-language page, the Office of Student Accountability faculty and student academic-misconduct pages, the Student Code of Conduct PDF, the OSA contact page, the Faculty Ombudsperson page and the Student Advocacy page. All unchanged: every quotation still present verbatim and every stated source date intact. Detection sweep re-run (named-vendor and category): no net-new detector and no disabling of or recommendation against AI detection — Turnitin remains the only AI-writing detector documented, Canvas-integrated and campus-wide; Respondus is StudyMate Author only, Canvas IgniteAI carries no writing-detection feature, and Packback makes no detection claim. OSA contact, the Faculty Ombudsperson (faculty-only, students directed to HR and Student Academic Success) and the Student Advocacy office confirmed unchanged. Internet Archive captures were requested this date but the Save Page Now endpoint was unavailable from this environment; captures remain to be added on a future pass. Automated research pass.

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