Northern Arizona University.
- Detection status
- Turnitin Originality named by the Office of the Provost as “NAU's industry-leading licensed solution,” in the same sentence that says detector results “cannot be considered as definitive evidence of an academic integrity violation”; Verity documented as an AI-enabled proctoring service; Cline Library's guide adds that a detector's evaluation is “insufficient evidence” on its own; no NAU page names a Turnitin AI writing indicator as a separate feature
- Office in these sources
- Academic Integrity, Office of the Provost · AcademicIntegrity@nau.edu · no phone is published for the academic-integrity function in these sources — the page's contact block gives the general Provost's Office line · in.nau.edu — Academic Integrity. For conduct matters the published office is the Office of the Dean of Students, Room 104 Building 30, University Union, 1050 S Knoles Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86011 · 928-523-5181 · DeanofStudents@nau.edu · in.nau.edu — Dean of Students
- Ombuds or advocacy office
- Northern Arizona publishes an Office of the University Ombuds, but its own page states a scope that excludes most of this page's readers: “The Northern Arizona University Office of the University Ombuds serves as a confidential, independent, impartial and informal resource available to faculty, staff, and graduate students to address concerns that impact one's work, life, or study at NAU.” Undergraduate students are not among the populations it names. Its contact, as published: Room 4102 Building 25, Health and Learning Center, 824 S. San Francisco St, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5733 · 928-523-8767 · ombuds.office@nau.edu · in.nau.edu — University Ombuds Program. No separate undergraduate ombuds or independent student-advocacy office was located on the institution's own pages in this review.
- Sources last checked
- Aug 28, 2026
Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.
Northern Arizona University's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. The governing document for an academic matter is the Academic Integrity Policy, policy number 100601, with an effective date of 8/11/2024, which sets the standard of proof, the notification and meeting sequence in business days, the faculty-level sanctions, and the appeal route through the associate dean to the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs and, on procedural grounds only, to the Provost's Office. The separate Student Code of Conduct and its procedures, administered by the Office of the Dean of Students, govern conduct matters. NAU publishes no single university-wide rule on classroom AI use; its provost-level AI resources set out guidance and leave the rule to the course, so the syllabus carries it. 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 licensed at Northern Arizona — and the Provost's own page limits what its output can establish
The Office of the Provost's AI resources for faculty name the tool and the limit in a single passage (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):
Source: Artificial intelligence resources for faculty — in.nau.edu, Office of the Provost (instructor-facing, quoted because it describes the process a student experiences). Two things are established there at once, and both matter to a reader: NAU licenses a detector, and the office above the colleges has published a sentence about what its output cannot be. The address legacy.nau.edu carries the same page and forwards to this one.
The deployment is documented in two further places. The Teaching and Learning Center's educational-technologies list carries Turnitin under the heading “Plagiarism Checker,” linking onward to NAU's own knowledge-base articles for using Turnitin inside and outside Canvas; source: Educational Technologies — in.nau.edu/teaching-learning-center. And the Provost's faculty-tools page states, under “Testing and academic integrity”: “Turnitin — NAU has licensed Turnitin Originality to check student submissions for originality and plagiarism.” Source: NAU-supported faculty tools — in.nau.edu/provost/online (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026). Scope: student submissions, via Canvas and through Turnitin directly. Who sees the results: the instructor.
A distinction worth stating because it changes what a student is looking at. NAU's own pages name the licensed product as “Turnitin Originality” and describe the category as “GenAI detector technologies”; no NAU page located in this review names a Turnitin AI writing indicator, or SimCheck, as a separately enabled or disabled feature. Whether the AI writing feature is switched on, and what a score from it would be worth in a case, are not addressed on any NAU page located; that absence is stated here rather than filled in from the vendor's product documentation.
The proctoring stack is documented on the same faculty-tools page and is AI-driven, though not a writing detector (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):
Source: NAU-supported faculty tools — in.nau.edu/provost/online. Scope: assessments, through a browser extension on the student's own device. NAU makes no AI-writing-detection claim for it.
A third statement sits at a different level again, and its provenance is stated rather than smoothed over. Cline Library's AI Literacy guide, on its AI Detection Tools page, states (the guide's own metadata gives a created date of Aug 27, 2024 and a modified date of Aug 6, 2026; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):
Source: AI Detection Tools, AI Literacy — libraryguides.nau.edu. This is a library research guide, not the Provost's policy pages and not the Academic Integrity Policy, neither of which addresses detection tools; where it sits in NAU's hierarchy is not determined here. The same guide also states that “Many educators don't support the use of AI writing detectors.” Read alongside the Provost's sentence, the two documents point the same way on evidentiary weight while carrying different institutional authority, and that difference is the finding.
Stating the absences at the scope actually searched: no AI-detection tool beyond Turnitin Originality was located as an NAU deployment in this review across the named vendors — Turnitin and its SimCheck and Originality product names, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity — nor on the Provost's artificial-intelligence pages for faculty and for students, the Teaching and Learning Center's educational-technologies list, the Provost's faculty-tools page, or Cline Library's AI Literacy guide. The educational-technologies list names Ally, Kaltura, Lightboard, iClicker, Packback, Top Hat, Zoom and Turnitin, of which only Turnitin is described as a detection tool; Packback appears there as an AI-supported discussion platform, not a detector. NAU's enterprise generative-AI tool is Microsoft Copilot, described on the university's own pages as its official AI productivity tool, which is not a detector either. No separate graduate, thesis or dissertation originality-checking pipeline, and no iThenticate deployment, was located, and that category is reported as searched-without-result on the pages named here rather than through a dedicated Graduate College submission page, which was not located in this review.
What Northern Arizona's own documents say about how cases proceed
- Who may be present
- “Any party may bring in a silent observer to witness the discussion. This silent witness will not be permitted to participate directly or speak for the party but may be present during meetings and hearings.” — Academic Integrity Policy, policy number 100601, General Procedure (effective 8/11/2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · nau.edu — Academic Integrity Policy #100601. Two limits on that sentence are worth stating rather than reading past: it is the only provision on accompaniment located in the policy, and it names a silent observer rather than an advisor, a support person or an attorney — no provision naming or excluding legal counsel in an academic-integrity matter was located. On recording: not stated in the sources reviewed. The policy defines a “Meeting” to include “in-person, telephone, or other meeting assistive technologies (e.g., Skype, FaceTime, etc.)” but says nothing about whether one may be recorded; searched the Academic Integrity Policy in full and the Student Code of Conduct Procedures page, and no provision addressing recording was located.
- What follows on the record
- “All Academic Integrity violations are recorded in the student's record, regardless of any enrollment actions taken by the student.” — Academic Integrity Policy, policy number 100601, Additional Information (effective 8/11/2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · nau.edu — Academic Integrity Policy #100601. Beyond that sentence the answer is an absence, and it is a wide one. No provision stating whether a finding produces a transcript notation, how long a record is retained, or whether it is disclosed to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards was located in the Academic Integrity Policy, on the Provost's academic-integrity resource page, or on the Dean of Students' student-handbook pages. What the policy does establish is that the record is made and that withdrawing does not prevent it.
The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.
The Academic Integrity Policy states both the standard and who carries it (effective 8/11/2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):
Source: Academic Integrity Policy #100601 — nau.edu/policies. Reporting runs through a form the policy names: “All actions shall be recorded via the Academic Integrity Violation Reporting Form and filed with the Office of the Provost via email submission to AcademicIntegrity@nau.edu.”
The sanctions available to a faculty member, as the policy lists them, are “A written warning … Reducing the grade on the assignment or examination. Awarding a grade of zero or ‘F’ … Reducing the grade in the course by one letter grade. Awarding a failing grade in the course. Termination of employment (if applicable).” A University Academic Hearing Board may go further, including a “Recommendation to the Provost (or designee) that the student be removed from their major, degree program, or college temporarily [or] permanently … that the student be suspended … [or] expelled from the institution.” Source: Academic Integrity Policy #100601.
The appeal route is stated in the same document, and its timing is expressed in terms of the following term rather than in days from the decision:
Source: Academic Integrity Policy #100601. The policy states that an appeal arising from a fall or winter term must be “initiated between the associate dean's determination and the 15th business day of the following spring term,” and one arising from spring or summer by “the 15th business day of the following fall term,” with a further appeal to the Provost's Office available on procedural grounds “within ten (10) business days from the date of the VPAA notification.” Those intervals are quoted from the policy, not calculated here.
Located and recorded so a reader knows which office to approach for which matter: the Student Code of Conduct and its procedures are published separately and administered by the Office of the Dean of Students, whose own procedures page states, “For more information about these procedures, contact the Office of the Dean of Students at 928-523-5181 or DeanofStudents@nau.edu.” Source: Student Code of Conduct Procedures — in.nau.edu/university-policy-library (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 27, 2026). What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.
Where the documents live
| Document | Location |
|---|---|
| Academic Integrity Policy, policy number 100601 (effective 8/11/2024): preponderance and burden, notification and meeting intervals, silent observer, sanctions, appeal route, the record sentence | www9.nau.edu/policies — Academic Integrity Policy #100601 |
| Academic Integrity, Office of the Provost (reporting route and office email) | AcademicIntegrity@nau.edu · no academic-integrity phone published (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · in.nau.edu/provost — Academic Integrity |
| Student Code of Conduct Procedures, Office of the Dean of Students | Room 104 Building 30, University Union, 1050 S Knoles Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86011 · 928-523-5181 · DeanofStudents@nau.edu (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · in.nau.edu/university-policy-library — Student Code of Conduct Procedures |
| Student Handbook, Office of the Dean of Students | in.nau.edu/dean-of-students/student-handbook |
| Artificial intelligence resources for faculty, Office of the Provost (Turnitin Originality named as NAU's licensed solution; “cannot be considered as definitive evidence”) | in.nau.edu/provost — AI resources for faculty |
| Artificial intelligence resources, Office of the Provost (index; students' page) | in.nau.edu/provost — Artificial intelligence resources |
| NAU-supported faculty tools (Turnitin Originality license statement; Verity AI-enabled proctoring) | in.nau.edu/provost/online — NAU-supported faculty tools |
| Educational Technologies, Teaching and Learning Center (Turnitin under “Plagiarism Checker”) | in.nau.edu/teaching-learning-center/educational-technologies |
| AI Detection Tools, AI Literacy guide, Cline Library (created Aug 27, 2024; modified Aug 6, 2026 — library guide, provenance noted in section 01) | libraryguides.nau.edu — AI Detection Tools |
| Microsoft Copilot at NAU (the university's stated official AI productivity tool; not a detector) | in.nau.edu/its/copilot |
| Office of the University Ombuds (serves faculty, staff and graduate students by its own statement; scope noted in the docket) | Room 4102 Building 25, Health and Learning Center, 824 S. San Francisco St, Flagstaff, AZ 86011-5733 · 928-523-8767 · ombuds.office@nau.edu (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · in.nau.edu/university-ombuds-program |
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
2026-08-27 — Page created. All quotations captured this date, first-party, from the in.nau.edu, www9.nau.edu and libraryguides.nau.edu pages linked beside them; every source quoted here was fetched and read as text rather than summarized, and no page relied on was blocked or client-rendered. Source dates as the sources give them: the Academic Integrity Policy carries policy number 100601 and an effective date of 8/11/2024; the Cline Library AI Literacy guide's own metadata gives a created date of Aug 27, 2024 and a modified date of Aug 6, 2026; the Provost's AI, faculty-tools and academic-integrity pages, the Teaching and Learning Center page, the Dean of Students pages and the Ombuds page display no on-page date, which is stated beside each quotation. Host note: legacy.nau.edu addresses for the Provost's AI pages forward to the in.nau.edu pages cited here rather than serving separate content. Detection sweep recorded for a later reviewer. Named-vendor sweep — Turnitin (including SimCheck and Originality), Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity: Turnitin Originality found and documented as licensed by NAU in three places, the Provost's AI faculty page, the Provost's faculty-tools page and the Teaching and Learning Center's educational-technologies list; Verity found as an AI-enabled proctoring service, with no AI-writing-detection claim; Packback found on the educational-technologies list as an AI-supported discussion platform, not a detector; Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity: nothing located. Category sweep — the Provost's artificial-intelligence pages for faculty and for students; the Provost's NAU-supported faculty tools page, which is where the Canvas-adjacent tool inventory is published; the Teaching and Learning Center's educational-technologies list; Cline Library's AI Literacy guide; the ITS Copilot pages. Scope limit stated rather than implied: no dedicated Graduate College thesis or dissertation submission page was located in this review, so the negative result for a separate graduate originality-checking pipeline and for iThenticate rests on the pages named here rather than on that pipeline's own documentation. Disqualification check run on the completed inventory: Northern Arizona has not disabled or recommended against AI detection across the board. The reviewer-judgment call is recorded here rather than buried, because on this page the caution comes from the Provost's office rather than from a teaching centre: the same sentence that names Turnitin Originality as “NAU's industry-leading licensed solution” says its results “cannot be considered as definitive evidence of an academic integrity violation.” That is a statement about weight, not a disabling and not a recommendation against use, and the license is affirmed in the same breath — the same middle-status family as tamu, usf, cincinnati, uga, gsu, csulb, ttu, csun, temple and odu, and the owner may weigh it differently. Provenance kept explicit, as the queue's note for this school asked: Cline Library's “insufficient evidence” statement is quoted with its host and its status as a library research guide stated, and it is not attributed to the Provost or to policy — the same handling used on unt. Nothing paraphrase-pending — every quotation on this page was captured as text. Absences recorded as findings: no NAU page names a Turnitin AI writing indicator as a separately enabled or disabled feature, and none addresses what such a score would be worth in a case; no provision on whether a meeting or hearing may be recorded; no provision naming or excluding an advisor or legal counsel in an academic-integrity matter, only the silent-observer sentence; no transcript-notation provision, no retention period and no disclosure provision for graduate programs, employers or licensing boards, beyond the policy's sentence that all violations are recorded in the student's record; no phone published for the academic-integrity function; and no ombuds or advocacy office serving undergraduate students, the University Ombuds naming faculty, staff and graduate students only. Automated research pass. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-27). Internet Archive captures: to be added.
2026-08-28 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; every quotation intact and no page revised. Retrieved and checked: the Provost's AI resources for faculty (the “NAU's industry-leading licensed solution Turnitin Originality … cannot be considered as definitive evidence” passage intact), the NAU-supported faculty tools page (the Turnitin-Originality license statement and the Verity AI-enabled-proctoring quotation intact), the Teaching and Learning Center's educational-technologies list (Turnitin still under “Plagiarism Checker”; Packback still described as an AI-supported discussion platform, not a detector), Cline Library's AI Detection Tools guide (the “insufficient evidence” statement and the “Many educators don't support the use of AI writing detectors” heading intact; created Aug 27, 2024, modified Aug 6, 2026), Academic Integrity Policy #100601 (still effective 8/11/2024; the preponderance and burden, the five-, three- and ten-business-day intervals, the silent-observer sentence, the all-violations-recorded sentence, the sanctions list, “the decision of the VPAA is final and binding,” and the appeal-window quotations all verbatim), the Student Code of Conduct Procedures page (the Dean of Students contact line intact), and the University Ombuds page (the faculty-, staff- and graduate-student scope statement intact; Room 4102 Building 25, 928-523-8767, ombuds.office@nau.edu). Office contacts re-confirmed — AcademicIntegrity@nau.edu; Dean of Students, 928-523-5181, DeanofStudents@nau.edu.
2026-08-28 — Detection status unchanged. Turnitin Originality remains the only AI-detection deployment documented — still named on the Provost's AI faculty page, the faculty-tools page and the educational-technologies list — Verity remains AI-enabled proctoring with no AI-writing claim, and no NAU page names a Turnitin AI writing indicator as a separate feature; the named-vendor sweep again returned nothing for Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity. Step-2 middle-status call unchanged: the Provost's “cannot be considered as definitive evidence” sentence limits the weight of a detector result while affirming the license in the same breath. Internet Archive captures still pending: Save Page Now was blocked from this run environment this date.
Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.