Texas Tech University.

What TTU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"Be accompanied by an advisor to any meeting or hearing (may be an attorney)." The same document adds: "An advisor can be a member of the Texas Tech Community (faculty, staff, or student), a parent or legal guardian, a relative, or an attorney," but "may not speak on behalf of the student and does not have an active, participatory role." On recording: "All Hearing proceedings, excluding the deliberations of the Hearing Panel, will be recorded by the University." — Rights and Responsibilities, Office of Student Conduct (titled for the 2018-2019 academic year, still the version currently linked as the office's statement of student rights; retrieved Aug 24, 2026) and the 2025-2026 Student Code, Part I, Section C.11.c (retrieved Aug 24, 2026) · Rights and Responsibilities · 2025-2026 Student Code

What follows on the record

"The status of Disciplinary Suspension will be shown on the student's academic record, including the transcript. Disciplinary Suspension is noted on the student's transcript by the phrase 'Disciplinary Suspension' […] In most instances, the notation of Disciplinary Suspension will remain on the transcript permanently." Disciplinary Expulsion is noted the same way, by the phrase "Expulsion." The Code's separate list of Academic Penalties — grade-based sanctions such as a reduced or failing grade — carries no transcript-notation provision of its own; on TTU's own pages, a transcript notation attaches only where a Disciplinary Suspension or Expulsion sanction is also imposed. — 2025-2026 Student Code, Part I, Section C.12.c-d and C.12.g (retrieved Aug 24, 2026) · 2025-2026 Student Code

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

From the 2025-2026 Student Code, Part I ("Code of Student Conduct"), Section C (retrieved Aug 24, 2026):

Source: 2025-2026 Student Code. Separately, OP 34.12 sets the referral timeline: "the instructor should refer the allegation along with supporting documentation or analysis no later than 30 days after learning of the alleged misconduct," and if a final grade is due before a matter is resolved, "the involved student may be given a temporary grade of X by the Office of the Registrar, which does not affect the student's GPA, until the academic integrity adjudication process is complete." Source: OP 34.12: Grading Procedures, Including Academic Integrity (page dated Sept 6, 2024; retrieved Aug 24, 2026).

The Office of Student Conduct's own process materials for academic-integrity matters specifically state that an investigator "issues a formal allegation(s), only if the evidence demonstrates that an […] violation occurred and meets the Preponderance of the Evidence standard," and that the investigator "finds the student either Responsible or Not Responsible, and sends a Decision Letter to the student (the reporting faculty and the appropriate Associate Academic Dean will be carbon copied)." Sources: Academic Integrity Process and Academic Integrity: A Guide for Faculty (Guide revised 08/18/2021; both instructor-facing, quoted here because they describe the process a student experiences; retrieved Aug 24, 2026). The Office of Student Conduct also publishes a page titled "Preponderance of the Evidence" that presents the standard as a graphic rather than as text; its content could not be captured as text and is listed by title and link only. 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 retrieved this date from the ttu.edu and depts.ttu.edu pages linked beside them. Source pages carried their own dates where displayed: the two TLPDC AI-caution white papers are both dated Summer 2024 and remain the resources linked from the TLPDC AI Teaching Resources hub (last edited on its own page Aug 19, 2026); OP 34.12 is dated Sept 6, 2024; the TTU Libraries AI Detection guide shows a Last Updated date of Aug 21, 2026; the Academic Integrity Faculty Guide is marked Revised 08/18/2021; the 2025-2026 Student Code and the Rights and Responsibilities PDF display no internal revision date beyond their titles (the latter is titled for the 2018-2019 academic year but is still the document currently linked from the Office of Student Conduct's Rights and Responsibilities page, whose own last CMS edit shows Jan 21, 2020 — flagged here rather than silently treated as current). DETECTION STATUS: not a step-2 disqualification. TTU's own TLPDC/Office of Student Conduct guidance advises "extreme caution" and states a detector report "cannot serve as the sole, definitive evidence," but the same guidance states a detector report "can serve as one piece of evidence when an academic integrity incident report form is filed" — the tool is not disabled and its use as evidence is not barred, so this page is built and flagged for reviewer judgment in the same family as Texas A&M, USF, Cincinnati, UGA, GSU, and CSULB. SimCheck (Turnitin) is named as the Canvas-integrated plagiarism tool providing an "AI Score" in the TLPDC white paper's own general description of learning-management-system detectors, not in a TTU-specific enablement statement; no campus-wide statement separately enabling or disabling the SimCheck AI-writing feature itself was located, and that absence is stated on the page. The TTU Libraries guide's detector caution concerns the third-party tools it lists (GPTZero, Copyleaks, etc.), not SimCheck specifically; the two are kept distinct on the page. SUBSTANTIVE FINDING: the Student Code's Academic Penalties provision (grade-based sanctions for academic misconduct) carries no transcript-notation clause of its own; transcript notation in the Code attaches only to the Disciplinary Suspension and Disciplinary Expulsion sanctions, which are separate from, and not automatic upon, a finding of academic misconduct. OMBUDS CHECK: two named offices were located and both excluded on their own terms — the Faculty Ombudsperson serves faculty only, and the Online Student Advocate program serves online students on enrollment and registration matters only; no general/on-campus student ombuds or independent advocacy office was located, and the docket states this plainly rather than listing either office as available. Student Legal Services (licensed attorneys, by appointment) was found and considered but not used for the ombuds row: it provides legal advice/representation to enrolled students generally, not an independent or confidential channel specific to academic-integrity matters, and TTU's own Rights and Responsibilities document already covers the right to bring an attorney as an advisor of choice. The Preponderance of the Evidence page's content is a PNG graphic and could not be captured as text; listed by title and link only, nothing quoted from it. 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; substantively unchanged. Both TLPDC detector white papers were re-fetched: "Why TTU Recommends Caution with AI Detectors" (still dated Summer 2024) carries verbatim the "extreme caution … no conclusive proof can be provided by an AI detection tool at this time" passage, the SimCheck/Turnitin Canvas "AI Score" description, the "AI detector results cannot serve as the sole, definitive evidence" line, and the "a report from an AI detector can serve as one piece of evidence when an academic integrity incident report form is filed" line; the companion "Academic Misconduct with AI" white paper was not re-opened this pass and is retained as last verified 2026-08-24. The TTU Libraries AI Detection guide's banner quotations ("TEXAS TECH DOES NOT ENDORSE ANY AI DETECTION TOOLS…" and "AI detectors are unreliable as indicators of AI misuse…") are verbatim, but the guide's own Last Updated date advanced from Aug 21 to Aug 24, 2026 (its curated third-party link list was refreshed; the quoted banner text did not change) — the in-text date reference has been updated to match. OP 34.12 (still dated Sept 6, 2024) was re-fetched and both quoted passages — the "no later than 30 days after learning of the alleged misconduct" referral rule and the temporary grade of "X" provision — remain verbatim. Detection-inventory sweep re-run: SimCheck (Turnitin) remains the only institutionally integrated detector; the Libraries guide's other products are listed for information only and TTU states it does not endorse them; no new institutional detector is documented first-party. Not separately re-fetched this pass and retained as last verified 2026-08-24: the 2025-2026 Student Code, the Rights and Responsibilities PDF, the Academic Integrity Process and Faculty Guide PDFs, and the teaching-with-ai hub 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.