Missouri State University.

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

Who may be present

“Both the student against whom an allegation has been lodged and the teacher have the right to be assisted by an advisor they choose at their own expense. This advisor may be an attorney. The student/teacher is responsible for presenting his or her own information and, therefore, advisors are not permitted to speak or to participate directly in any hearing. It is the responsibility of the student/teacher to request AIC Chair approval for the advisor at least 48 hours prior to the hearing.” The policy adds an observer provision: “at the student's request, the Chair may permit a student's parent(s) or legal guardian(s) and/or spouse to observe and may permit a limited number of additional observers.” Two scope limits are worth reading beside those sentences: the advisor provision attaches to the Academic Integrity Panel hearing, and the policy states no right to an advisor or support person at the earlier teacher-student meeting, which is where most matters begin and end; and on recording, not stated in the sources reviewed — the policy was read in full for a provision permitting or prohibiting a student's own audio or video recording of the hearing, and none appears, while the only note-taking provision is an institutional one, “plus an assistant to document the hearing (optional).” — Student Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures, section “Academic Integrity Hearing” (document approved by the President August 14, 2023; retrieved Aug 31, 2026) · Student Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures (PDF)

What follows on the record

“issuing a failing course grade of 'XF', which indicates that this failing grade was due to academic dishonesty. The grade 'XF' shall be treated as an 'F' grade for the purposes of grade point average, course repeatability, and determination of academic standing.” The policy provides a route to removal: “After a period of one year has elapsed since the grade of 'XF' was imposed, a person who has received a grade of 'XF' (whether or not currently enrolled as a student at Missouri State University) may file a written petition (form) to the AIC to have the grade of 'XF' removed from the transcript and permanently replaced with the grade of 'F'.” Suspension and dismissal are notated separately — “a notation will be made on the student's transcript that the suspension or dismissal was for reasons of academic dishonesty” — and no removal route for that notation is published. On retention: “Academic integrity records shall be permanently maintained by the Office of the Provost.” On disclosure to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards: not stated in the sources reviewed. The policy was read in full and the Academic Integrity site's student pages with it; what the policy does address is disclosure inside the university, to the academic unit or program director of a student's own major or program. — Student Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures, sections “Teacher Sanctions,” “Academic Integrity Council Sanctions/Recommendations” and the records provisions (document approved by the President August 14, 2023; retrieved Aug 31, 2026); the policy governs undergraduate and graduate students alike · Student Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures (PDF)

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

How a matter starts. The policy (approved by the President August 14, 2023; retrieved Aug 31, 2026) routes the first stage to a meeting between the instructor and the student, and closes one door at the outset:

Notification, and what the student receives:

The standard of proof, which differs by who initiated the matter — both formulations appear in the same document:

What an instructor may impose, and what the Council may:

The appeal path and its windows, in the policy's own words, and one limit on what an appeal can reach:

And a protection that runs while an appeal is pending:

Source for all six blocks above: Student Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures. The same document sets further windows the reader will meet in sequence — a hearing notice at least four days out, a review request within 15 academic days of the Council's written decision, an appeal of suspension or dismissal to the President within 10 academic days — and provides for witnesses, interpreters and participation by videoconference on 48 hours' pre-approval. Located but not captured as quotation here: the reporting and appeal routes are forms hosted on a third-party conduct-management system linked from the Academic Integrity pages, and the forms' own content was not read in this review. Any date above is quoted from the policy, not a deadline calculation performed for you. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-29 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date, first-party, from the missouristate.edu pages and PDF linked beside them. Source page dates: the Student Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures PDF carries a 2023 cover year, an approval line reading “Approved by President: August 14, 2023,” and a revision history running from Board of Governors approval on February 18, 2000 through Spring 2014; the Faculty Center's assessment-tools page carries a modified date of April 23, 2026 and its Teaching with AI page April 22, 2026; the Writing Center's AI policy August 26, 2025; the Academic Integrity contact page July 21, 2025, its student-resources page November 4, 2025 and its landing page April 30, 2024; the Ombuds Office page January 30, 2026; the Faculty Center blog post was published January 18, 2023 and carries a modified date of January 16, 2025.

2026-08-29 — Detection sweep recorded. Named-vendor sweep: Turnitin (including the AI writing indicator and the SimCheck and Originality product names), Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity were searched against missouristate.edu. Two came back positive as institutional deployments: Turnitin, documented as plagiarism detection an instructor enables per assignment in Brightspace, and Respondus (LockDown Browser, Monitor and Respondus 4, documented as proctoring and exam authoring with no AI-writing-detection claim). GPTZero and Packback returned a single hit each, in the Faculty Center blog post recorded above with its provenance. All other vendors came back empty. Category sweep: Missouri State's learning-management system is Brightspace, and the Faculty Center's Brightspace resource pages are the closest published equivalent to an integration catalogue; they list Turnitin and Respondus and no detector beyond them. The Graduate College's thesis and dissertation resources name no similarity or plagiarism screening step. The proctoring stack is Respondus alone. The Faculty Center's Teaching with AI page — the university's central faculty AI guidance — names no detection tool of any kind. The library's research guides surfaced no detector and no adapted-from-another-institution provenance note. Step-2 disqualification check: pass. No Missouri State page disables AI detection or recommends against it, and none states that an AI-writing detector is enabled; the detection inventory is not empty, since Turnitin and Respondus are both documented deployments, and the absence of any first-party statement on AI-writing detection is recorded above as the finding rather than resolved by inference in either direction. Deliberate omissions. Third-party tracker, vendor-blog and student-press claims about Missouri State were disregarded as unverified and are neither quoted nor linked. Nothing on this page derives from the University of Missouri or the UM System, which are separate institutions.

2026-08-29 — Uncaptured, and one item deliberately not quoted. The Policy Library's HTML renderings of this policy and of its procedures summary (Op3.01 and Op3.02 in Chapter 3) were not fetched in this review; every policy quotation above comes from the captured PDF instead, so no quotation here rests on an unread page. One sentence about the XF grade surfaced only as a search snippet from the Op3.02 summary page and is deliberately not quoted or paraphrased here, because it was not captured. A second, apparently older “Student Ombudsman” page exists under the Student Success path; it was not captured, its relationship to the President's Ombuds Office is unresolved, and nothing on this page rests on it. The reporting and appeal forms are hosted on a third-party conduct-management system and were not opened. The Faculty Center's Teaching with AI page renders part of its content through client-side scripting; the substantive guidance captured cleanly and only a faculty-profile carousel did not, and nothing is quoted from the uncaptured portion. All four items are paraphrase-pending and need a manual read before promotion. Missouri State–West Plains maintains its own separate academic-integrity pages; this page is scoped to the Springfield campus and does not cover them.

2026-08-29 — Absences recorded at the scope actually searched. No provision permitting or prohibiting a student's own recording of a hearing appears in the policy. No right to an advisor or support person at the teacher-student meeting stage is published; the advisor provision attaches to the panel hearing. No provision on disclosure of academic-integrity records to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards is published. No route to removal of a suspension or dismissal transcript notation is published, though one is published for the XF grade. The Academic Integrity office publishes a phone number, an email address and a campus mailing address but no building or room, and the docket says so. The Ombuds Office publishes no central phone number and no office location, and the docket says so rather than substituting a university switchboard number. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-29).

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: the FCTL Assessment Tools page (the Turnitin plagiarism-detection sentence and both Respondus sentences; page still modified April 23, 2026), the FCTL Teaching with AI page (the sample syllabus-statement sentence; still modified April 22, 2026), the Writing Center AI policy (its one quoted sentence; still modified August 26, 2025), the FCTL blog post (the GPTZero and Packback mentions, still recorded with provenance, not as deployments), the Student Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures PDF re-read in full (advisor/attorney and observer provisions, the anonymous-reports and meeting sentences, the two evidentiary formulations and the “not a trial” sentence, the teacher- and Council-sanction lists, the XF grade and its one-year removal petition, the suspension/dismissal notation, the permanent-retention provision, the 5- and 15-academic-day appeal windows, the “sanction of the teacher can not be appealed” and continue-attending provisions; still “Approved by President: August 14, 2023”), the Ombuds page (the independence description and the no-grievance/no-advocacy limits, plus the Ombuds@MissouriState.edu email and the Chris Herr 417-576-6444 / Mary Bohlen 417-771-0102 representatives), and the Academic Integrity contact page (417-836-6673, AcademicIntegrity@MissouriState.edu). Retrieval dates advanced to Aug 31. FETCH NOTE: the policy PDF returns HTTP 406 to a text/html Accept header and 200 to an application/pdf one; this is a fetch-negotiation quirk, not a change at the source. Detection inventory (named-vendor + category sweeps) re-run: Turnitin and Respondus remain the only documented deployments, neither claimed as an AI-writing detector; GPTZero and Packback still appear only in the blog post; no campus-wide statement enabling or disabling AI detection was located — the section-01 absence stands. Still paraphrase-pending and unquoted, as at build: the Op3.01/Op3.02 Policy Library HTML renderings, the third-party conduct-management forms, and the older “Student Ombudsman” page. No captures requested this pass.

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