University of Alabama at Birmingham.

What UAB’s own Academic Integrity Code says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

“Accused students may be accompanied by one advisor of their choice in the conference or hearing. The advisor may be an attorney.” — Academic Integrity Code §III-G-5f (Effective Date: August 23, 2021; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) · UAB Academic Integrity Code (PDF)

What follows on the record

“Suspensions and expulsions are recorded on the student transcript.” — Academic Integrity Code §III-G-6 (Effective Date: August 23, 2021; retrieved Sep 1, 2026). Separately, UAB’s Records Retention Schedule lists “STUDENT DISCIPLINARY FILES […] investigations and disciplinary actions taken against students for violations of university rules and regulations,” retained “5 years after closure of case file or until the student leaves the university, whichever is longer” (RDA 1.03; responsible unit: Student Conduct; no on-page date; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) · UAB Academic Integrity Code (PDF)

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

UAB’s Academic Integrity Code (effective August 23, 2021; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) is not administered by one central office. It is coordinated at the school/college level: “the process is coordinated by the Academic Integrity Coordinator […] for the school or college who is designated by the dean.” A member of the University community reports suspected misconduct to the instructor or directly to that school’s Coordinator; an instructor who suspects misconduct confers with the Coordinator to decide between a student-instructor Resolution Agreement (available only for a student with no prior record, and unavailable once suspension or expulsion is a possible sanction) or referral to the Coordinator for a Conference or an Academic Integrity Hearing Panel.

The standard of proof, quoted in full: “The applicable standard for evaluating whether a violation did or did not occur under this policy is ‘a preponderance of the evidence.’ That is, a Hearing Panel must find that a student’s actions, more likely than not, constituted a violation of this policy.”

Notification and rights before a Conference or hearing, quoted from §III-G-5a:

On the advisor specifically, §III-G-5f adds: “The advisor may privately consult with the student during the conference or hearing but may not question witnesses or otherwise directly participate in a conference or hearing. The student shall speak on their own behalf.” The Code does not say whether a student may audio- or video-record the conference or hearing — that question is not addressed anywhere in the document reviewed.

Appeal rights differ by resolution path. A Conference resolved by the Coordinator is final: “All cases resolved by a Conference with the Coordinator shall be final and conclusive and not subject to further review.” Only a Hearing Panel finding may be appealed, in writing to the dean of the school or college where the case was heard, within five business days of receiving the findings; the review is “limited to consideration of findings of fact, recommended sanctions, or any written response from the accused student citing prejudice or procedural error,” and the dean must respond within five business days.

Sanctions escalate with severity and repeat offenses, from an Academic Integrity Workshop or a reduced assignment grade, through a reduced course grade or an “F” in the course (a grade the Grade Forgiveness Policy is barred from replacing when it results from misconduct), to Academic Probation, Academic Suspension, or Academic Expulsion — the Code’s own severity guide sorts offenses as minor, moderate, or major and escalates the proposed sanction on a second or third offense. Suspensions and expulsions “apply throughout the University,” are “recorded on the student transcript,” and a suspended student needs the receiving school’s permission to enroll elsewhere at UAB; after one semester a suspended student may apply for reinstatement.

Separately from the sanction process, UAB requires every admitted student to complete an “Academic Integrity Code (AIC)” course in Canvas each term; failing to finish by the term’s deadline “will automatically result in a registration hold […] preventing students from registering for classes for the subsequent semesters” — a preventive requirement, not a finding of misconduct.

Source: UAB Academic Integrity Code (PDF), and Academic Integrity Code — One Stop Student Services for the AIC course requirement. What these quotations mean for any particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; they are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-01 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the uab.edu pages linked beside them, and from two uab.edu PDFs (the Academic Integrity Code, whose own cover states “Effective Date: August 23, 2021,” and the Records Retention Schedule, neither of which carries a separate on-page retrieval date beyond that). Detection-status sweep: named-vendor (Turnitin AI writing indicator/SimCheck/Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and category (Canvas LMS tool catalogue, graduate/research pipeline, exam-proctoring stack, IT technologies index, library research guides, teaching-center pages) found two deployed detectors, not one: Turnitin AI Check, Canvas-wide and instructor-enabled per assignment, and iThenticate, which “can also detect AI-generated text,” available through the Office of Research for research/publication review. One item found arguing against detector use — a Sep 25, 2024 post on “Composing in the Age of GenAI,” a College of Arts and Sciences pedagogy-project blog, signed by an individual contributor and stating “DON’T SUBMIT STUDENT WORK TO GEN-AI DETECTION SOFTWARE” — is recorded and labeled as one educator’s opinion, not institutional policy; it did not trigger a step-2 disqualification, since the inventory is not empty and no uab.edu administrative page disables or recommends against detection institution-wide. OMBUDS TRAP CHECKED AND CONFIRMED: the University Ombudsperson’s own page states it serves “UAB faculty, staff, mentored graduate students, and postdoctoral fellows […] for university related conflicts” — undergraduates and non-mentored graduate students are outside its stated scope. Community Standards & Student Accountability, the office that administers the separate non-academic Student Conduct Code, was checked as a possible advocate; its own mission statement (“uphold individual and community standards; encourage an environment of personal accountability […] care for the wellbeing, health, safety, and property of all members of the University community”) frames it around standards and accountability, not independent advocacy for an accused student, so it is not recorded as an advocacy office. No independent ombuds or advocacy office serving undergraduates was located. University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa’s August 2023 Turnitin AI-detection disablement (QUEUE.md #23, Excluded) was not carried over to this page — UAB is a legally and administratively separate University of Alabama System campus, and its own sources were checked independently, consistent with the queue’s warning not to assume Tuscaloosa’s finding applies here. Academic Integrity Coordinator email addresses appear on a client-rendered version of the coordinators page but were not independently confirmed against a plain fetch this session, so they are not quoted above; the page is cited by name and link only. UNCAPTURED / PARAPHRASE-PENDING: none — every quotation above was read directly from a live uab.edu page or PDF this session. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter. Internet Archive captures: to be added.

Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.