San José State University.

What San José State's own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

Not stated in the sources reviewed. Policy S26-10 names no adviser, support person, attorney or observer at any stage of the academic-sanction process, and states no rule about recording a conference or an appeal hearing. What it does state, at §5.1, is: "Students are guaranteed due process, including the right to be informed of the charges and nature of the evidence supporting the charges and to have a meeting with the faculty member, SCED, or other decision makers. At any such meeting, students may submit statements and evidence to support their case." Searched S26-10 in full, the conduct office's Academic Integrity, Student Resources and FAQ pages, and the Student Ombudsperson's pages; no companion or recording provision was located on any of them. Separately, administrative discipline through SCED runs under the systemwide California State University student conduct procedures, which S26-10 references but which were not captured first-party in this review — an open item rather than an answer. — University Policy S26-10, §5.1 (Academic Senate approved May 4, 2026; presidential signature dated May 20, 2026; retrieved Aug 25, 2026) · University Policy S26-10 (PDF)

What follows on the record

"SCED shall notify faculty members when action has been taken, and maintain a record of students who have been reported for violating the Academic Integrity Policy." The policy also requires SCED to "maintain a database for tracking academic integrity violations." No transcript-notation provision and no retention period were located in S26-10, on the conduct office's pages, or on the Student Ombudsperson's pages; the policy states what SCED keeps, not for how long or whether it reaches the transcript. Administrative sanctions are a separate track that can reach further: "violations of the Student Conduct Code (Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations Section 41301), including cheating or plagiarism in connection with an academic program, may warrant expulsion, suspension, probation, or a lesser sanction." Recorded as a change a reader should know about: the superseded F15-7 stated that where a student was exonerated "the record of the alleged violation shall be expunged and academic sanctions against the student prohibited"; S26-10 was searched for an equivalent expungement provision and none was located. — University Policy S26-10, §4.2 and the SCED role section (Academic Senate approved May 4, 2026; retrieved Aug 25, 2026); University Policy F15-7, §5.3, superseded (retrieved Aug 25, 2026) · University Policy S26-10 (PDF) · F15-7 (superseded)

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

The policy runs on two clocks, and states what happens if the second one is missed (retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

Source: University Policy S26-10 (PDF), §3.0. The policy also describes what the conference is for: the faculty member "shall explain the allegation, present any supporting evidence, and provide the student with the opportunity to respond to the allegation," and "The student must be offered the opportunity to provide their perspective and respond to the allegation." Where the instructor is unavailable or unresponsive, "Department chairs or associate deans are authorized to respond to student inquiries regarding instances of alleged violations when necessary."

Sanctions are tiered by a levels-of-offence framework the policy sets out at §4.1: a Minor offence is "minor actions of plagiarism or cheating without clear evidence of intent to gain unfair advantage," carrying a recommended "oral reprimand; repetition of the assignment; and/or lower grade on the evaluation instrument"; a Moderate offence carries "failure on the evaluation instrument and/or reduction in course grade"; and a Major offence — "premeditated or planned plagiarism or cheating with clear evidence of intent to gain unfair advantage" — carries "failure on the evaluation instrument, reduction in course grade, failure in the course, and/or recommendation of additional administrative sanctions." Faculty determine the initial academic sanction; SCED reviews it "and determine whether they are justified in light of the provisions of the Student Conduct Code and commensurate with university norms of severity contained in this policy."

On appeals, the policy states (retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

Source: University Policy S26-10 (PDF), §5.3. The policy's description of the committee's role adds that appeals "shall be subject to a thorough review process with evidence presented by the instructor, student, and any other parties involved in earlier review processes, such as department chairs, SCED, university Ombudsperson, or other administrators or staff." What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-25 — Page created. Every quotation on this page was captured first-party this date from the sjsu.edu addresses linked beside it; nothing is paraphrase-pending. Policy S26-10 was read end to end and its own section numbering is what this page cites. Source dates as displayed: S26-10 states Academic Senate approval on May 4, 2026, a committee vote of April 27, 2026, and a presidential signature dated May 20, 2026, and states on its face that it rescinds F15-7; the conduct office's Academic Integrity page states Last Updated Aug 16, 2026; the Student Ombudsperson's What We Do page states Last Updated Aug 14, 2025. The teaching centre's Turnitin page displays no date of its own, which is stated beside it rather than glossed.

2026-08-25 — VERSION TRAP AVOIDED, recorded so it is not walked into again. A search for SJSU's academic-integrity policy surfaces S07-2 (2007) and F15-7 (2015) prominently, both still served from sjsu.edu, and F15-7 was captured first before the conduct office's own page revealed that the current policy is S26-10. This page quotes S26-10 throughout. F15-7 is linked once, explicitly labelled superseded, and only in support of a documented change: F15-7 §5.3 provided that on exoneration "the record of the alleged violation shall be expunged and academic sanctions against the student prohibited," and S26-10 was searched for an equivalent expungement provision without result. F15-7's appeal route to the Board of Academic Freedom and Professional Responsibility is likewise absent from S26-10, which routes appeals to ADRRC instead. Nothing else on this page rests on the superseded text.

2026-08-25 — Detection sweep recorded. Searched on sjsu.edu: Turnitin including its SimCheck, Originality and Clarity product names, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity; the teaching centre's software and teaching-tools catalogue; the conduct office's process, resource, forms and policy pages; policy S26-10; and the King Library's generative-AI guides. Documented in institutional use: Turnitin similarity in Canvas by two integration routes (the Canvas plagiarism framework and the Turnitin LTI 1.3 external tool), Turnitin AI Writing Detection, and the Turnitin Clarity pilot for Spring 2026. Came back empty on sjsu.edu in this review: Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity, and any separate graduate thesis or dissertation text-matching pipeline. OPEN ITEM: S26-10 restricts personnel to detection services "approved by the university," which implies a list; no such published list was located, and the page says so rather than treating the sweep result as equivalent to the approved list.

2026-08-25 — Step-2 disqualification check: clear pass, and the evidentiary statement here is the strongest on this site to date because of where it sits. Other institutions publish a not-sole-basis caution in teaching-centre guidance or a faculty-senate guideline; San José State put it in the Academic Integrity Policy itself, approved by the Academic Senate and signed by the President, and its conduct office restates it as "AI detection ≠ proof by itself." That is a rule about how the detector's output may be used, not a disabling or a recommendation against detection — the software remains university-approved and its output is listed among the documents faculty must attach when reporting.

2026-08-25 — Findings recorded, not resolved. (1) SUBSTANTIVE ABSENCE: S26-10 names no adviser, support person, attorney or observer, and no recording rule, anywhere in the academic-sanction or ADRRC appeal process; the "Who may be present" row therefore reads as an absence with the search stated. Administrative discipline through SCED runs under the systemwide CSU student conduct procedures, which S26-10 references and which supply advisor and hearing-recording rules on the CSU pages other institutions on this site quote; those systemwide procedures were NOT captured first-party in this review and nothing is attributed to them here. Capturing them is the highest-value open item for the next review of this page. (2) No transcript-notation provision and no retention period were located in S26-10 — a narrower record statement than most built pages carry, and stated as a located absence. (3) The conduct office's Academic Integrity page carries a visible editorial instruction in its published text — "This is where the webpage should introduce the new Minor / Moderate / Major framework:" — immediately above the framework itself, which indicates the page is mid-revision; the substantive content around it matches S26-10 §4.1 and is quoted from the policy rather than from the page wherever both state the same rule. (4) The office's published address pairs a college name with a Student Union floor ("College of Professional and Global Education, 3rd Floor, Student Union"); reproduced as published, not reconciled.

2026-08-25 — Deliberate omissions. The King Library's teaching-and-generative-AI guide carries a page stating that detectors including Turnitin fail in both directions; it is a library research guide rather than policy or a central IT statement, the same provenance line drawn on the unt and ttu pages, and nothing from it appears here. Turnitin's own vendor guides, linked throughout the teaching-centre page, are third-party and are not quoted. The Maxient-hosted Academic Integrity Reporting Form and the Google-hosted intake forms are transactional portals and were not opened. Subreddit demand scan not run (outside this run's research method). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-25). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

2026-08-25 — Boundary review before hand-off, corrections recorded. An independent read of this page against the site's editorial boundaries produced five changes, all made the same date. (1) A sentence weighed two sources against each other in this page's own voice ("SJSU's own rule is elsewhere, and it is stronger"); the provenance point it was making is legitimate and is kept, the comparison is gone. (2) A sentence set the required documentation beside the not-sole-basis rule in a way that constructed an inference rather than recording what two documents say; it now reports the documentation requirement and stops. (3) The source-map row for the Student Ombudsperson adopted "neutral, discreet, informal" without quotation marks; it now quotes. (4) Two framing sentences comparing this institution to others on the site were removed from the lede and section 01. (5) The Turnitin Clarity paragraph now attributes the description of what the tool records to SJSU rather than asserting it. No quotation was altered and no finding was withdrawn.

2026-08-27 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; no change found. Policy S26-10 (still Academic Senate approved May 4, 2026, committee vote April 27, 2026, presidential signature May 20, 2026, rescinding F15-7) was re-fetched in full and every quoted provision remains verbatim — the §2.0 detection-service rule and its "Academic sanctions may not be imposed based solely on the results of the university-approved AI-detection software" sentence, the §1.2.3 / §1.1.5 / §1.3 AI definitions, the §3.0 ten- and fifteen-working-day windows and the reporting-form-invalidity rule, the §4.1 Minor/Moderate/Major levels, the §5.1 due-process statement, and the §5.3 ADRRC appeal windows. The CFETI Turnitin page was re-fetched and its quoted passages remain verbatim — the AI Writing Detection description, the "may not always be accurate and might misidentify …" limitation, the "broader evaluation process" line, the vendor-attributed "sole basis for any adverse action" sentence, and the Turnitin Clarity Pilot (Spring 2026) description. Detection-inventory sweep re-run: Turnitin similarity, Turnitin AI Writing Detection, and the Turnitin Clarity pilot remain the documented tools; no additional institutional detector was located first-party, and no published list of university-approved detection services was located this pass either. Not separately re-fetched this pass and retained as last verified 2026-08-25: the SCED Academic Integrity process page (Last Updated Aug 16, 2026), the Turnitin Clarity page, the policies index, the superseded F15-7 (linked only for the documented change), and the Student Ombudsperson page — flagged for the next pass. Office and ombuds findings 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.