Temple University.

What Temple's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"'Personal Advisor' means any person asked by the Accused Student, Complainant, or a witness to assist the Student in the student conduct process. The Personal Advisor is an inactive participant in the proceedings and is not permitted to directly address the Student Conduct Board during Student Conduct Board hearings." On recording, the same Code states: "There shall be a single record, which may include an audio or video recording, of all Student Conduct Board hearings before a Student Conduct Board. Deliberations shall not be recorded. The record shall be the property of the university, accessible to involved students as a student record in accordance with university policies." — Student Conduct Code, Policy 03.70.12, Article I §9 and Article IV.C.15 (policy states Date Last Amended/Reviewed: August 2025; retrieved Aug 25, 2026) · Student Conduct Code (PDF)

What follows on the record

"Student Conduct files shall be maintained separately from other files of the Student. […] Information from the Student Conduct files will not be made available to unauthorized persons within the university community or to any non-university person without the express written consent of the student involved except under legal compulsion or in cases where safety of persons is involved. All Student Conduct files will be retained for at least six years after graduation or separation from the university." No transcript-notation provision was located: the Code's sanctions list (Article IV.D) runs from "Letter of Reprimand—A notice in writing to the Student that will remain with their discipline record" through University Expulsion and "Academic Sanctions- A grade reduction, failing grade and other appropriate academic sanctions," and none of the listed sanctions mentions the transcript. What the Bulletin does state about transcripts is a hold: "A disciplinary hold is placed on the student's record if sanctions are unfulfilled. The hold prevents students from registering for courses, receiving their transcript or graduating." — Student Conduct Code, Policy 03.70.12, Article VI.B and Article IV.D (Date Last Amended/Reviewed: August 2025; retrieved Aug 25, 2026); Temple University Bulletin 2026–2027, Student Rights and Responsibilities (retrieved Aug 25, 2026) · Student Conduct Code (PDF) · Bulletin — Student Rights and Responsibilities

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

Temple routes an academic-dishonesty report through a portal, and the choice it puts to the student is set out on Student Conduct and Community Standards' own page (retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

Source: Academic Dishonesty — Student Conduct and Community Standards. The same page states that a student choosing Resolution 3 "will proceed to either an Administrative Hearing or a Board Hearing depending upon the severity of the sanction recommended by the instructor."

On the two hearing tracks, Temple's pages state (retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

Source: Administrative Hearing — Student Conduct and Community Standards. The Student Conduct Code states the standard applied by the board track: "The Student Conduct Board's determination shall be made on the basis of whether it is more likely than not that the Accused Student or Student Organization violated the Student Code." (Article IV.C.14.) On advisers, the Code adds that the parties "have the right to be assisted by any Personal Advisor they choose, at their own expense," that faculty, university staff or an attorney may serve, and that the Student Conduct Administrator must be notified of the name "at least two business days prior to the hearing."

On appeals, Temple's page states (retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

Source: Appeals — Student Conduct and Community Standards. Temple's student FAQ states the same window as "five school days" in one sentence and "five (5) business days following receipt of the decision letter" in the next; both wordings are reproduced as Temple currently publishes them, without a determination of which controls. Source: Frequently Asked Questions — Student (retrieved Aug 25, 2026).

On what conduct is charged, the Student Conduct Code names artificial intelligence software inside its cheating definition (Article III, Proscribed Conduct; Date Last Amended/Reviewed: August 2025; retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

Source: Student Conduct Code, Policy 03.70.12 (PDF). The Bulletin reproduces the same clause in its Academic Honesty section and adds: "The penalty for academic dishonesty can vary from receiving a reprimand and a failing grade for a particular assignment, to a failing grade in the course, to suspension or expulsion from the university." Located and reproduced without resolution: the Faculty Guide states the Provost "has provided a blanket policy for Temple University stating that the use of generative AI tools is prohibited for students unless an instructor explicitly grants permission," while the Code's own text reaches AI through the general "unauthorized use of online sources" clause rather than a dedicated AI provision. 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 temple.edu addresses linked beside it; nothing is paraphrase-pending. Source page dates as displayed: A Faculty Guide to A.I. states "Last Update: 21 May 2026"; the Turnitin AI Detector knowledge-base article carries meta article:published_time 2025-04-24 and article:modified_time 2026-04-02; the Proctorio article carries 2025-04-23 and 2025-06-30; the Student Conduct Code PDF states Date Created January 1, 2004 and Date Last Amended/Reviewed August 2025; the Bulletin is the 2026–2027 edition. The Student Conduct Code PDF was read end to end (35 pp. of extracted text) rather than searched, and Article numbering used on this page was read from the document's own headings (Article III Proscribed Conduct, Article IV.C Student Conduct Board Hearings, IV.D Sanctions, IV.E Appeals, Article VI.B Student Conduct files).

2026-08-25 — Detection sweep recorded. Searched on temple.edu: Turnitin including its SimCheck and Originality product names, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity; the Canvas teaching-technologies catalogue; the IT service catalogue and knowledge base; the Libraries' generative-AI research guides; and the graduate and dissertation pipeline. Documented in institutional use: Turnitin similarity in Canvas, the Turnitin AI Detector under a request-and-training gate, and Proctorio for online exams. Came back empty on temple.edu in this review: Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock and Examity, and any separate graduate or dissertation detection pipeline. Located but deliberately kept off the detection inventory: Respondus Monitor, which appears in an Institutional Research and Assessment FAQ for the Math Placement Assessment — a placement instrument, not coursework — and is noted in section 01 as out of scope rather than presented as a coursework detector.

2026-08-25 — Step-2 disqualification check, reviewer-judgment call recorded rather than buried. Temple's teaching centre states plainly that relying on AI detectors "is not a viable solution" and that the licensed tool "is often inaccurate," which is stronger caution language than most built pages carry. It was not treated as a step-2 disqualification, because the same pages state that Temple holds a university-wide license, that the tool "will be available for faculty who wish to use it" on request, and that instructors should raise the detector's result with the student — a caution about reliance, not a disabling or a bar on use. Same reviewer-judgment family as tamu, usf, cincinnati, uga, gsu, csulb, ttu and csun. Flagged here so the reviewer can reach a different conclusion on the same quotations.

2026-08-25 — Findings and divergences recorded, not resolved. (1) SUBSTANTIVE: the Student Conduct Code contains no transcript-notation provision. Its sanctions list runs from Letter of Reprimand to University Expulsion and Academic Sanctions without any of them attaching a transcript entry, and Article VI.B addresses conduct files rather than the transcript. The only transcript language located anywhere is the Bulletin's disciplinary hold, which withholds a transcript while sanctions are unfulfilled. This is thinner transcript exposure than most built pages state, and it is written as a located absence rather than an inference. (2) Two different phone numbers are published for the same office on the same site: 215-204-3286 on Student Conduct and Community Standards' own Contact Us page, (215) 204-6556 in the footer of every page on that site. Both are reproduced; neither is preferred. (3) The student FAQ states the appeal window as "five school days" in one sentence and "five (5) business days" in the next, while the Appeals page and the Code both say five business days; all wordings reproduced, no determination made. (4) The Code's citation for the Student Ombudsperson points at the Equal Opportunity Compliance ombudspersons directory, and the EOC describes that roster's role in discrimination-and-harassment terms; both statements are quoted in the docket rather than reconciled. Recorded and not used: the same EOC roster lists an Associate Director for Residential Student Conduct among its ombudspersons, which is noted here for the reviewer and is not characterized on the page.

2026-08-25 — Deliberate omissions. The Turnitin AI Detector faculty training is a self-enrolling Canvas course behind a Temple login; it is named on the pages quoted above and was not opened, and nothing is attributed to it. The linked Guidelines for Generative Artificial Intelligence (Office of the President, July 2024) and the AI Notetaker guidelines are institution-wide technology guidance rather than academic-integrity procedure, and are not quoted here. Third-party detector-status trackers were not used in either direction. 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 four changes, all made the same date. (1) Section 01's heading and its closing paragraph were rewritten to remove framing that told the reader what to notice. (2) The absence statement about evidentiary weight now names the pages that were searched for it, rather than resting on the vendor-name sweep described elsewhere in the section — the two searches are about different questions and the page now says which one produced the absence. (3) A source-map row restated the appeal window outside quotation marks; it now describes the provision instead of the interval. (4) No factual change was made and no quotation was altered.

2026-08-27 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; no change found. The Center for the Advancement of Teaching's A Faculty Guide to A.I. (still stating "Last Update: 21 May 2026") was re-fetched and every quoted passage remains verbatim — the university-wide Turnitin AI Detector license and its "often inaccurate … request access and complete a brief asynchronous training" gate, the "it is not a viable solution" detector caution, the CAT/SSC five-detector assessment passage, the "exercise caution when accusing a student" passage, the instructor-to-student "the AI detector tool said that it is AI written" script, and the Provost's blanket-prohibition-unless-permitted statement. Detection-inventory sweep re-run: Turnitin (similarity, and the request-gated AI Detector) and Proctorio remain the documented tools; no additional institutional detector was located first-party. Not separately re-fetched this pass and retained as last verified 2026-08-25: the IT knowledge-base Turnitin AI Detector and Proctorio articles, the Turnitin similarity page, the Student Conduct Code PDF (Policy 03.70.12, Aug 2025), the SCCS Academic Dishonesty / Administrative Hearing / Appeals / Sanctions / FAQ pages, the Bulletin, and the EO Ombudspersons directory — 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.