Texas State University.

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

Who may be present

"Honor Code cases and processes are not considered legal proceedings. Advocates and supporters, including legal representation, may be present at meetings and Honor Code Council hearings, but their role is limited to consultation with the student or faculty member. They do not have an active role in presenting information during meetings or hearings." A second, narrower condition applies at the hearing itself: "Students may have a third party in attendance only if there is an appropriate FERPA release on file. The third party cannot address the hearing committee directly." On recording: "The hearing, with the exception of the panel's deliberation, will be recorded. If either party desires to appeal the finding, a copy of the recording will be produced at no cost, and both parties will be furnished a copy for appeals purposes only." — UPPS 07.10.01, Honor Code, §01.04 and §03.03 (Issue No. 11, effective 9/06/2024; retrieved Aug 25, 2026) · UPPS 07.10.01 — Honor Code

What follows on the record

"Records of students who are found responsible of academic misconduct will be maintained by the AVPEAI's office in accordance with the University Records Retention Schedule SAP410. These records are intended for internal tracking purposes only and are not subject to open records or freedom of information requests." The Honor Code Council's student-facing page states the retention period and the escalation route: "Students found guilty of academic misconduct will have a file created indicating a record of academic dishonesty and that file is maintained for five years in the Office of the Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs. Depending on the severity of the violation or in the case of repeated violations (i.e. 'serial' academic misconduct), students may be referred to the Dean of Students Office for disciplinary action." No transcript-notation provision was located in UPPS 07.10.01 or on the Honor Code Council's pages; what the policy does provide for is a hold — "A hold may be placed on the student's academic record until the matter is resolved" — appearing at several points in §03.02. — UPPS 07.10.01, §03.02 and §03.07 (Issue No. 11, effective 9/06/2024; retrieved Aug 25, 2026); Consequences of Academic Misconduct, The Honor Code (page metadata dated 2022-11-22 and flagged stale by the site's own metadata; retrieved Aug 25, 2026) · UPPS 07.10.01 · Consequences of Academic Misconduct

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

UPPS 07.10.01 states (Issue No. 11, effective 9/06/2024; retrieved Aug 25, 2026):

Source: UPPS 07.10.01 — Honor Code, §03.02. If the faculty member still suspects a violation, the Honor Code Review form goes to the Assistant Vice Provost for Experiential and Academic Initiatives, whose office then sends the student a Case Resolution form. The policy states what that form asks: the student may "accept the faculty member's determination and waive their right to a hearing" or "not accept the determination and request a hearing with the Honor Code Council to review the case." Two provisions in the same section attach a consequence to silence: "A student who fails to respond to the faculty member within three business days will be referred to a Hearing Officer," and, of the Case Resolution email, "If a student does not respond to the email within three business days, a hold will be placed on their academic record until the matter is resolved."

On the hearing itself, the policy states that the Hearing Officer "will make every effort to schedule the hearing within 10 business days," will "provide copies of the supporting evidence" in advance, and that the student "should provide copies of any evidence at least three business days prior to the hearing." The Hearing Committee is drawn from the Honor Code Council and must include "an equal number of faculty […] and students with a minimum of three faculty and three students," six members in total plus a non-voting chair or vice chair as hearing officer, and the student "has the right to waive the requirement to have six committee members present." The Committee makes "two assessments: whether to uphold the faculty member's finding of academic misconduct and whether to uphold the penalty," and the policy adds: "A tie vote confirms the faculty member's determination." Source for this paragraph: UPPS 07.10.01 — Honor Code, §03.03 (Issue No. 11, effective 9/06/2024; retrieved Aug 25, 2026).

Stated as a located absence rather than filled in: UPPS 07.10.01 states no standard of proof. It does not say preponderance, more likely than not, clear and convincing, or anything else; the Hearing Committee is told to "consider all materials submitted" and to make the two assessments above. Searched for a standard of proof in the policy read in full, on the Honor Code Council's student and faculty resource pages, on its FAQ, and on its Consequences of Academic Misconduct page; none was located on any of them.

The Council's own page states the three recommendations available to it — "Upholding the instructor's finding of guilt and the penalty," "Upholding the instructor's finding of guilt, but recommend a different penalty," and "Rejecting the instructor's finding of guilt and the attached penalty" — and then: "The council's recommendations are sent to the college dean where the violation occurred. The final decision rests with the dean of that college." UPPS 07.10.01 states the sequence that follows in its own words: the dean "will render a decision and inform all parties including the faculty member, student, the AVPEAI's office, and the Hearing Officer of the decision within 10 business days"; then "After receiving the dean's decision, the student or faculty member will have five business days to file an appeal to the provost and executive vice president for Academic Affairs"; and the provost or designee "will hear appeals of academic decisions and will reach a decision within 10 business days, with the understanding that additional time may be required to obtain information or counsel pertinent to the decision." Those are the policy's dates, quoted from it, not a deadline calculation performed for anyone. The grounds it states for that appeal are:

Source: UPPS 07.10.01 — Honor Code, §03.05. On what an instructor may impose, the Council's student page states that "instructors are limited to three academic penalty options in cases of academic misconduct" and lists reduction of the grade for the assignment, reduction of the final grade in the course including failure, and additional academic work; the policy's own Academic Penalty definition at §02.02 lists additional academic work, "a reduction in grade in the course to any level," "a reduction in grade on an examination, or on other academic work affected by the violation of the Honor Code," and "a penalty related to a non-course violation as codified in departmental or catalog policy." Both are reproduced as published. On withdrawal, the policy states: "A student who is accused of academic misconduct, but drops the class before the case is resolved, will be re-enrolled in the class by the University Registrar's Office until the Honor Code process has concluded," and "Withdrawal from the course does not prevent a student from receiving an 'F' in the course, nor does it halt further Honor Code proceedings." 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 txst.edu addresses linked beside it; nothing is paraphrase-pending. UPPS 07.10.01 was read in full as served in HTML — an unusually clean capture, since most institutions on this site publish their equivalent as a PDF — and the section numbering used here is the policy's own. Source page dates as displayed: the policy states Issue No. 11, Effective Date 9/06/2024, Next Review Date 6/01/2029, with page metadata of 2024-10-21; the Faculty AI Guidelines carry metadata of 2025-12-05, the Student AI Guidelines 2025-08-28, the Student Ombuds Services page 2026-07-17, and the Ombuds Services index 2022-09-07. The Consequences of Academic Misconduct page carries metadata of 2022-11-22 and is flagged by Texas State's own page metadata as stale; that flag is stated on this page rather than omitted, and the five-year retention figure it supplies is attributed to it rather than to the policy.

2026-08-25 — Detection sweep recorded. Searched on txst.edu and txstate.edu: Turnitin including its SimCheck and Originality product names, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity and TopHat; the Honor Code Council's faculty and student pages and FAQ; UPPS 07.10.01 and the Student Handbook; and the Online and Extended programs academic-integrity pages. Documented by the Honor Code Council itself: Turnitin plagiarism and AI writing detection reports, and a TopHat information feed to the Council. Named by the Council as proctoring options, with a pointer to TXST Online and Extended programs: Proctorio and ProctorU — those vendor service pages were NOT captured in this review, so the page reports the Council's naming of them and does not describe their deployment on the university's behalf; capturing them is an open item for a later review. Came back empty on txst.edu in this review: Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Honorlock and Examity, and any separate graduate thesis or dissertation text-matching pipeline.

2026-08-25 — Step-2 disqualification check: pass, and squarely in the middle-status family with tamu, usf, cincinnati, uga, gsu, csulb, ttu, csun and temple. The Honor Code Council states that a Turnitin AI score "cannot be the sole evidence of academic misconduct when submitting an Honor Code violation" — a corroboration-required rule, not a disabling and not a recommendation against use. The same page treats the report as a live input and tells instructors what to look for beside it. Nothing recommending against detection or disabling the tool was located.

2026-08-25 — Findings recorded, not resolved. (1) SUBSTANTIVE: UPPS 07.10.01 states no standard of proof anywhere. Searched the policy in full, plus the Honor Code Council's student and faculty resource pages, its FAQ and its Consequences page; nothing was located. This is the same category of finding as the University of Houston's honesty policy, and it is stated on the page as a located absence rather than assumed to be preponderance because most peers say so. (2) No transcript-notation provision was located; the record is a five-year file in the Provost's office, which the policy states is "intended for internal tracking purposes only and are not subject to open records or freedom of information requests" — a more protective statement than most built pages carry. Holds on the academic record, by contrast, appear repeatedly. (3) OMBUDS TRAP, resolved by stating the scope rather than by omitting the office: Texas State's Student Ombuds Services is confidential, neutral and informal by its own description and serves currently enrolled students, but it is housed in the Dean of Students Office, which also houses Student Conduct & Community Standards and is where UPPS 07.10.01 sends flagrant or repeated Honor Code cases. Recorded as available with that scope stated, not as independent of every office the matter can reach. A separate Ombuds Services index publishes distinct faculty, staff and student channels; the faculty channel is out of scope for this page's reader. (4) "A tie vote confirms the faculty member's determination" is quoted rather than characterized, because its effect is easy to misstate.

2026-08-25 — Deliberate omissions. The Dean of Students Office publishes an Attorney for Students service; it is a legal-advice service rather than a confidential conduct-specific channel and was deliberately not used for the ombuds row, the same handling applied on the ttu page. The Faculty AI Guidelines link an external detector vendor's blog post on building evidence for an AI case; it is third-party and nothing from it appears here. The Maxient-hosted Honor Code Review and Case Resolution forms are transactional portals and were not opened. The Center for Teaching, Learning & Scholarship's syllabus-statement examples are instructor drafting aids rather than integrity procedure and are not quoted. 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. This page needed the most work of the five built this date, and an independent read against the site's editorial boundaries produced seven changes, all made the same date. (1) MATERIAL: a sentence chained three appeal deadlines together in this page's own voice — the dean's 10 business days, the five business days to appeal, the provost's 10 business days — which is a calculated timeline, exactly what the footer says this page does not do. Every one of those intervals is now quoted from UPPS 07.10.01 with the policy's own wording. (2) The three-business-day provisions and the Case Resolution options are likewise now quoted rather than paraphrased. (3) The docket's ombuds row concluded that the service "is not independent"; it now states the structural facts, quotes the policy's referral sentence, and records that neither the service's page nor the policy describes it as independent — the same handling the buffalo page uses. (4) The source-map row for the same service adopted "confidential, neutral, informal" without quotation marks; it now quotes. (5) The docket's detection line collapsed three different provenances for TopHat, Proctorio and ProctorU that section 01 correctly separates; it now carries the distinction, and the index row was updated to match. (6) A recording provision was described as "unusually favourable to the student"; that assessment is gone. (7) Six framing sentences were removed across sections 01 and 02, and a paragraph that harmonised the Council's penalty list with the policy's Academic Penalty definition now reproduces both as published instead. No quotation was altered and no finding was withdrawn.

2026-08-27 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date; no change found. The Honor Code Council's Faculty AI Guidelines (still page-dated 2025-12-05) were re-fetched and every quoted passage remains verbatim — "Turnitin provides both plagiarism and AI writing detection reports to faculty … the score cannot be the sole evidence of academic misconduct when submitting an Honor Code violation," the three corroborating observations, and the Chrome-extensions paragraph naming Proctorio, ProctorU and the "HCC receives information from TopHat" feed. UPPS 07.10.01 (still Issue No. 11, Effective 9/06/2024, Next Review 6/01/2029) was re-fetched in full and every quoted provision remains verbatim — the advocates/supporters and FERPA-release attendance rules, the hearing-recording rule, the faculty-discussion and three-business-day steps, the 10-business-day hearing scheduling, the Hearing Committee composition, "A tie vote confirms the faculty member's determination," the dean's-decision / five-business-day-appeal / provost sequence, the two appeal grounds, the §03.07 records provision, and the §02.02 Academic Penalty list; the policy still states no standard of proof, and that located absence stands. Detection-inventory sweep re-run: Turnitin (plagiarism and AI writing detection) and the TopHat feed remain documented by the Council; Proctorio and ProctorU remain named-only at the Council's provenance; no new institutional detector was located first-party. Not separately re-fetched this pass and retained as last verified 2026-08-25: the Student AI Guidelines, the Consequences of Academic Misconduct page (already flagged stale), the Student and Faculty Resources pages, and the Student Ombuds Services 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.