North Carolina State University.

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

Who may be present

"To have a single Observer at the hearing for support." An Observer "may be a parent, friend, or other person of the Respondent's choice," but "may not confer with the Respondent, provide representation, actively participate, or disrupt or delay the hearing." Attorney/Non-Attorney Advocate representation is available only for Non-Academic Misconduct, not Academic Misconduct; a Respondent not represented by one "may elect to be accompanied by a Hearing Assistant who provides procedural guidance" but who "may not speak on behalf of" or represent the Respondent. — REG 11.35.02, Student Discipline Procedures §§ 3.1.11, 6.2, 6.3 (last revised July 22, 2025; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · REG 11.35.02. On recording: no provision was located stating whether a student may independently record a hearing; the appeal record is defined to include "any recording or transcript of testimony," indicating the University itself may record proceedings, but the regulation does not state this as a right or rule in the section addressing hearing conduct.

What follows on the record

"Notations will be made on a transcript whenever a Student is suspended or expelled, where a disciplinary proceeding is pending that could result in a sanction of a suspension or expulsion, or when there are outstanding sanctions to be completed." "Expulsions will result in permanent notations on a Student's transcript which cannot be removed." Suspension notations "may be removed upon Student petition." On disclosure: "Disciplinary records for Respondents who were found responsible may be reported to third parties in accordance with University regulations and applicable laws, including but not limited to FERPA." — REG 11.35.02 §§ 8.2, 8.3.2, 8.3.3 (retrieved Aug 24, 2026) · REG 11.35.02

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

From REG 11.35.02, Student Discipline Procedures (last revised July 22, 2025; retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

Source: REG 11.35.02 — Student Discipline Procedures. Appeals are limited to three grounds: procedural error, substantive error ("so lacking in record support that no reasonable person could have reached the conclusion"), or new evidence not reasonably available earlier. Non-expulsion appeals go to the Vice Chancellor and Dean of Academic and Student Affairs (or, for graduate students, the Dean of the Graduate School), whose decision "shall be final"; expulsion appeals go to the Chancellor, whose decision "shall be the final decision." A Conduct Board hearing academic-misconduct case is heard by "two (2) faculty members or other University employees approved by the Director, two (2) full-time Students, and the Presiding Officer." What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-24 — Page created. All quotations captured this date from the studentconduct.dasa.ncsu.edu, news.delta.ncsu.edu, teaching-resources.delta.ncsu.edu, policies.ncsu.edu, and ombuds.dasa.ncsu.edu pages linked beside them; REG 11.35.02 was captured as a plain-text HTML regulation page (last revised Sept 3, 2024, per its own history line) rather than a PDF, an unusually clean first-party capture for a systemwide-style conduct regulation. Detection status confirmed first-party and affirmative: DELTA News reports Turnitin's AI Detection report "is re-enabled and available through the Turnitin Assignment tool" (article published Sept 2, 2025, og:modified_time Sept 8, 2025), and DELTA's Teaching Resources article gives full instructor mechanics plus Turnitin's own in-product notice reproduced on NC State's page. Not a step-2 disqualification: the feature is documented as re-enabled and actively supported, not disabled, and the caution quoted is about reliance. NARROWER ABSENCE STATED: the Office of Student Conduct's own evidentiary rule ("will not accept referrals where the sole source of information is the Similarity Score Index") is written about the Similarity Score Index by name, not the separate AI Detection Report; no page located in this review restates that rule for AI-detection scores specifically, and the page says so rather than assuming the same rule extends. OMBUDS TRAP CHECKED AND PASSED: NC State publishes two ombuds offices — a Faculty and Staff Ombuds Office (facultyombuds.ncsu.edu, out of scope for this page's reader) and the separate Student Ombuds Services used here, which states on its own page that it is "independent, neutral, confidential, and informal" and serves students generally, not a sub-school or graduate-only population; contact numbers (919.513.3401 appointments, 919.513.0235 confidential voicemail) confirmed directly from its Contact page, and its email is Cloudflare-obfuscated on the page itself but was corroborated by an independent web search returning "student-ombuds@ncsu.edu" verbatim — same corroboration method used on this site's gsu page for an obfuscated address, noted here rather than presented as decoded from source. Who-may-be-present row deliberately distinguishes the academic-misconduct Respondent's actual options (Observer, and a Hearing Assistant if unrepresented) from the Attorney/Non-Attorney Advocate right, which REG 11.35.02 §6.1.1 scopes to Non-Academic Misconduct only — a scope line worth stating plainly rather than smoothing over, since a reader facing an academic-integrity charge does not get the attorney-representation right a non-academic Respondent would. No hearing-recording rule for students was located; the regulation's appeal-record definition implies an official recording exists but does not state a student's right to record independently, and that absence is stated on the page rather than inferred either way. Subreddit demand scan not run (outside this run's research method; entries 29-30 researched the same day were excluded before reaching a demand scan). Automated research pass. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-24). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-27 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date. DATE CORRECTION: REG 11.35.02's own History line reads "First Issued: November 3, 2003. Last Revised: July 22, 2025." The page had recorded the regulation as "last revised Sept 3, 2024"; that date does not appear in the regulation's current history and has been corrected to July 22, 2025 in the lede, both procedure rows, the section-02 source line, and the source map. Every quoted provision was re-checked against the live regulation and remains verbatim — the "single Observer," "parent, friend, or other person," presumed-not-responsible/preponderance, "two (2) University business days," "ten (10) calendar days," "Expulsions will result in permanent notations," and third-party-disclosure passages all still match — so only the stated revision date changed, not the substance. Detection sources re-fetched and unchanged: DELTA News (published Sept 2, 2025, og:modified_time Sept 8, 2025) still carries "Turnitin AI Detection is re-enabled and available through the Turnitin Assignment tool …," and the Office of Student Conduct's Turnitin Resources page still carries verbatim "The Office of Student Conduct will not accept referrals where the sole source of information is the Similarity Score Index …." The DELTA Teaching Resources Turnitin article was not re-opened this pass and is retained as last verified 2026-08-24. Detection-inventory sweep re-run: Turnitin remains the only institutionally documented detector; no second detector located first-party. Office and ombuds contacts 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.