Old Dominion University.

What Old Dominion's own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

“Support Person: A person chosen by the complainant or respondent to join them during a SAM or University Accountability Board meeting but who may not actively participate in the meeting.” The Code's student-rights section adds, at §IX.G, the “Right to select the advisor of their choice who can also serve as a support person.” — BOV Policy 1530, Code of Student Conduct, §§V and IX (approved Aug. 27, 1970; most recently revised Aug. 23, 2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · odu.edu — BOV Policy 1530 (PDF). The Code says nothing either way about whether that advisor may be an attorney; the phrase it uses is “advisor of their choice,” and no provision naming or excluding legal counsel was located in the Code or in the 2025-26 Academic Integrity Procedures. The Code also separates the roles: “Witness: Someone with direct, personal knowledge of the incident. Witnesses do not have other roles in the meeting (e.g., support person, advisor)… Character witnesses are not permitted.” On recording: not stated in the sources reviewed. The Code prohibits, as non-academic misbehavior at §VIII.EE, “The creation, use, maintenance, display, or transfer of any recording (including audio, video, etc.) without permission where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy,” but that is a general conduct rule and does not address whether an accountability meeting may be recorded; no such provision was located in BOV 1530, the 2025-26 Academic Integrity Procedures, or the office's Student Conduct Process page.

What follows on the record

“The Office of Student Accountability & Academic Integrity may issue a transcript notation for academic integrity violations. If the student has completed all pathway projects and conditions and has not been found in violation for additional violations of a similar nature, the student may request to have the notation removed… A student may only request to have one notation removed.” On retention and disclosure the Code is unusually specific: “The Office of Student Accountability & Academic Integrity retains records for no less than seven (7) years in compliance with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. Resolutions resulting in suspension or expulsion will be retained permanently. They may be reported with the student's consent to third-party entities such as graduate or professional schools, employers, military branches, etc., or as required by law. Resolutions resulting in behavioral probation or deferred suspension will be retained for seven years and may be reported with consent upon request… Resolutions resulting in formal warnings or lower will not be reported to third-party entities.” — BOV Policy 1530, §§XV and XVI (revised Aug. 23, 2024; retrieved Aug 27, 2026) · odu.edu — BOV Policy 1530 (PDF). §XX adds an expungement route: “A student may request the expungement of their student behavioral record no sooner than one year after resolving their most recent incident… Expungement means the case will not be a reportable record to third parties,” while noting the record “will not be destroyed until it is permitted by the Act.” No provision addressing disclosure to licensing boards specifically was located.

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

The reporting deadline sits with the faculty member and is stated as a condition on the process itself. From the Academic Integrity Procedures 2025-26 (retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

Source: Academic Integrity Procedures 2025-26 (PDF). The Code defines the standard the office applies: “Preponderance of the Evidence: … based on the evidence provided, it is more likely than not that a violation occurred” (BOV 1530 §V.T). Notice is set at “no less than three (3) business days' notice of student accountability meeting date” among the student rights at §IX.B.

The procedures describe two tracks. The Academic Integrity Voluntary Resolution is “An informal way to resolve an academic integrity concern between the faculty member and the student… If the student accepts responsibility… the faculty member and student will come to an agreed resolution,” under which the faculty member “may assign an appropriate grade sanction (e.g., an F in the course or an F for the assignment or exam, redo/resubmit the original assignment, etc.)”; the procedures add that “Students are only eligible for one AIVR during their collegiate career.” The alternative is a formal Academic Integrity Meeting before a Conduct Educator or a University Accountability Board meeting. Source: Academic Integrity Procedures 2025-26 (PDF).

Appeals are governed by the Code, at §XIII (retrieved Aug 27, 2026):

Source: BOV Policy 1530, Code of Student Conduct (PDF). §XIII.D limits the grounds to an unreasonably harsh or inadequate status, procedural error, new information, and conflict of interest or bias, and the right of appeal attaches to deferred suspension, suspension, expulsion, housing or dining removal, and admission or degree revocation. The sanctions the Code makes available at §XIV run from Informal Warning and Formal Warning through Behavioral Probation, Deferred Suspension, Suspension and Expulsion, alongside “Educational or Restorative Measures” described as Pathway Projects, transcript notation, and, for degrees already conferred, “Revocation of Admission and/or Degree.”

Located but not resolved here, and recorded so a reader knows what they are looking at: ODU's web page “The Student Conduct Process” (modified 2025-01-13) describes the process using earlier terminology — OSCAI, Conduct Conference, Hearing — than the 2025-26 Academic Integrity Procedures, which use OSAAI, AIVR, AIM and UAB. Both are currently published by the institution. This page reproduces the difference rather than deciding which set of terms is operative. Source: The Student Conduct Process — odu.edu/student-conduct-academic-integrity/student-conduct. On disclosure of an outcome, the Code at §X.A.7 treats the resolution as part of the education record protected by FERPA while listing exceptions, among them that “The faculty member will be notified of the final resolution to assign an appropriate grade in all academic integrity cases.” 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 captured this date, first-party, from the odu.edu and online.odu.edu pages and PDFs linked beside them; every source quoted here was fetched and read as text rather than summarized. Source dates as the sources give them: BOV Policy 1530 approved Aug. 27, 1970 and most recently revised Aug. 23, 2024, with scheduled review Aug. 2029; the Turnitin academic-technology page published 2025-08-01 and modified 2026-01-12; the Respondus page published 2025-08-05 and modified 2026-01-12; the faculty AI page published 2023-03-24 and modified 2026-08-17; the Center for Faculty Development AI FAQ marked Version 2.0, August 8, 2023; the Student Conduct Process page modified 2025-01-13; the TMC Ombuds announcement dated April 30, 2026; the Academic Integrity Procedures identified on their face as 2025-26; the ODUGlobal exams page displays no date. 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 found and documented as integrated with Canvas, with an AI checker ODU's own page calls unreliable; Respondus found as exam authoring and lockdown; SmarterProctoring found as the proctoring service named to students; Copyleaks, GPTZero and Originality.ai found only in the Center for Faculty Development's list of third-party detectors faculty are told to be familiar with, on a page that separately warns uploading student work to external detectors may breach FERPA — recorded as a provenance distinction, not as deployments; Proctorio, Examity, iThenticate, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback and Grammarly Authorship: nothing located. Honorlock: an ODU address exists at online.odu.edu/faculty/technology/honorlock and returned an empty body to a plain fetch, so nothing is stated about Honorlock at ODU in either direction — NOT CAPTURED, needs a browser read. Category sweep — ODU Online academic-technology pages; ODUGlobal exams and proctoring pages; Center for Faculty Development / Faculty Excellence AI pages and FAQ; graduate, thesis and dissertation pipeline (nothing located, no separate originality-checking workflow and no iThenticate). No distinct ITS supported-software catalogue, Canvas external-tool list or library research guide enumerating detectors was located as a separate page in this review; that limit is stated on the page rather than left to imply a wider search. Disqualification check run on the completed inventory: Old Dominion has not disabled or recommended against AI detection across the board. The reviewer-judgment call is recorded here rather than buried, because the caution is stronger than most and the owner may weigh it differently: ODU's own academic-technology page says in bold that “the AI checker is not reliable!” and “often provides false positives,” and the Academic Integrity Procedures state the AI Checker percentage “alone does not determine” a violation — but the same page documents the checker as available and in use, and the same procedures keep the percentage in evidence, to be “considered with all other evidence.” That is a corroboration requirement, not a disabling or an evidentiary bar, and it places ODU in the same middle-status family as tamu, usf, cincinnati, uga, gsu, csulb, ttu, csun and temple. Divergences reproduced and not resolved: the office is titled “Office of Student Conduct & Academic Integrity” in the site's own navigation and breadcrumb while the office's contact block and the 2025-26 procedures both self-identify as “Office of Student Accountability & Academic Integrity,” and the page uses the latter; and “The Student Conduct Process” page uses OSCAI / Conduct Conference / Hearing terminology while the 2025-26 procedures use OSAAI / AIVR / AIM / UAB. Deliberate omissions: a search-engine result asserting Honorlock is in use at ODU was traced to no ODU page and is not carried forward in any form; the office directory page was listed but not separately quoted. Nothing paraphrase-pending — every quotation on this page was captured as text. Absences recorded as findings: no rule on whether an accountability meeting may be recorded; no statement on whether an advisor may be an attorney; no provision on disclosure to licensing boards; no student ombuds or independent student-advocacy office. Automated research pass. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-27). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

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 on this page was fetched again and its quoted and paraphrased text compared line by line against the page: the Turnitin academic-technology page (still modified 2026-01-12), the 2025-26 Academic Integrity Procedures PDF, BOV Policy 1530 (still revised Aug. 23, 2024, review Aug. 2029), the Center for Faculty Development AI page (still modified 2026-08-17), the Respondus page (still modified 2026-01-12), the ODUGlobal exams page, the Student Conduct Process page (still modified 2025-01-13), the OSAAI about/contact page, the AI Faculty FAQ (Version 2.0, August 8, 2023), and both the Faculty Ombuds and TMC Ombuds pages. All unchanged: every quotation still present verbatim and every stated source date intact. The Honorlock address at online.odu.edu/faculty/technology/honorlock again returned an empty body to a plain fetch and remains NOT CAPTURED, needing a browser read. Detection sweep re-run (named-vendor and category): no net-new detector and no disabling of or recommendation against AI detection since the build — Turnitin remains the only ODU-deployed AI checker, with Copyleaks, GPTZero and Originality.ai still appearing only in the faculty-awareness list under the page's own FERPA caution. OSAAI contact and both ombuds offices confirmed unchanged. Internet Archive captures were requested this date, but the Save Page Now endpoint was unavailable from this environment and rate-limited; 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.