University of Delaware.
- Detection status
- No campus-wide AI-text detector documented; UD cautions educators against AI detectors; iThenticate in the graduate thesis pipeline
- Office in these sources
- Community Standards & Conflict Resolution · 413 Academy Street, Newark, DE 19716 · 302-831-2117 · communitystandards@udel.edu. For graduate students, UD directs academic-honesty concerns to the Graduate College · grad@udel.edu
- Ombuds or advocacy office
- No office titled ombuds for students was located on the institution's own pages in this review. UD publishes a Student Advocacy & Support office — “dedicated to directly assisting students in navigating the complexities of university life” per UD — at 413 Academy Street · 302-831-8939 · studentsupport@udel.edu; its published services list leaves of absence, mental health and victim support, and does not name academic-integrity allegations, and UD does not describe it as independent or confidential · udel.edu — Student Advocacy & Support
- Sources last checked
- Sep 1, 2026
Reproduced from the institution’s own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.
The University of Delaware's published sources on AI detection and academic honesty, quoted and linked below. UD's structure splits cases two ways twice over: undergraduate cases run through Community Standards & Conflict Resolution under the Student Guide to University Policies (with a separate informal path under the Faculty Handbook), while graduate cases go to the Graduate College. Course syllabi set their own AI rules — UD's guidance tells instructors to state expectations per course. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case; confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.
What is documented — and what isn't
No campus-wide AI-writing detector was located on UD's own pages in this review — no Turnitin AI indicator, and no other AI-text detection tool in the Canvas@UD tool pages, the IT knowledge-base AI directive and guidelines, or the academic-integrity pages. What UD's AI for Teaching and Learning Working Group publishes instead is a caution (document dated May 1, 2024 in its file metadata; retrieved Aug 30, 2026):
Source: Considerations for Integrating AI Within Teaching and Learning (PDF), linked from UD's Artificial Intelligence for Teaching and Learning pages. A caution is not a ban: UD's sanctions criteria for academic-honesty cases expressly list “Some use of generative artificial intelligence” and “Significant use of generative artificial intelligence” among the criteria for its middle and highest penalty options (see section 02), so AI-use allegations proceed through the ordinary process whatever tool or observation produced them.
Two scoped tools are documented on UD's own pages. In the graduate thesis and dissertation pipeline, the Graduate College's Steps to Graduation instructs (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 30, 2026): “Utilize iThenticate for document review for copyright or plagiarism infringement.” This is a text-similarity check in the graduate submission workflow, not an AI-writing detector, and it is not the undergraduate reader's tool. Source: Steps to Graduation — Graduate College. In the exam stack, UD's Academic Technology Services announced Respondus LockDown Browser for Canvas quizzes (post dated Feb 11, 2025; retrieved Aug 30, 2026), a browser-locking proctoring support that UD says “is intended for use in proctored settings and can support — but not replace — the proctor’s role for on-campus exams”; the same post states “Respondus Monitor is not available.” It makes no AI-writing-detection claim. Source: Respondus LockDown Browser for Canvas Quizzes — Canvas@UD.
The absence stated at the scope actually searched: no AI-detection tool was located in this review across the named vendors (Turnitin and its AI indicator, Copyleaks, iThenticate beyond the graduate pipeline above, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus beyond LockDown Browser, Examity), the Canvas@UD tool and LTI pages, UD's IT knowledge-base generative-AI directive, guidelines and services list, or the academic-integrity pages. On AI-use rules themselves, UD's Center for Teaching and Assessment of Learning states that instructors must choose and actively communicate a course policy on these tools (page revised Apr 16, 2026; retrieved Aug 30, 2026): Advanced Automated Tools in Teaching and Learning — CTAL. Your syllabus and assignment instructions are therefore among the relevant sources for your own situation.
What UD's own pages say about how cases proceed
- Who may be present
- A student responding to a charge is entitled to “Be assisted by a Student Conduct Advisor of one’s choice, provided that person was not involved in the incident upon which the case is based,” and the advisor may “Accompany the Responding Party at all Student conduct meetings.” The same rights list includes “Refuse to answer any question or make any statement.” Whether a meeting may be recorded is not stated in the sources reviewed. — Student Guide to University Policies, IV. Rights (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 30, 2026) · Student Guide — Rights
- What follows on the record
- UD’s highest academic penalty is a grade of X: “Failure of a course with a notation on the transcript that indicates the failure was due to academic dishonesty”; “The student can choose to complete the Academic Integrity Seminar. Upon completion, the X notation will be removed from their transcript and replaced with an F grade.” — Faculty Resources, Academic Integrity, CSCR (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 30, 2026) · Faculty Resources. On retention, for most students, for cases with a status sanction short of expulsion, “removal of all information related to the incident and outcome will occur upon the Student’s graduation, completion of their program of study or, in the event the Student ceases to maintain enrollment, four calendar years following the Student’s most recent Term of enrollment.” — Student Guide, X. Retention and Release of Records (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 30, 2026) · Student Guide — Retention and Release of Records
The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution’s own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.
From Community Standards & Conflict Resolution's Faculty Resources page (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 30, 2026) — instructor-facing, and quoted here because it describes the process a student experiences:
The same page describes two resolution paths for undergraduates: a Faculty Handbook option — the instructor meets with the student and proposes an academic penalty, which UD states “Results in no reportable record” — and a Student Guide option through CSCR, which “Results in reportable record maintained by CSCR until graduation” and is the appealable path; a student who disagrees with a Faculty Handbook resolution has the incident submitted through the Student Guide process instead. Graduate cases go to the Graduate College. The sanctions criteria name generative AI directly: “Some use of generative artificial intelligence” appears among the Option B criteria and “Significant use of generative artificial intelligence” among the Option C criteria, whose penalty is the transcript-notated X grade quoted above. Source: Faculty Resources — Academic Integrity, CSCR.
The Student Guide's rights list also entitles a responding student to written notice of a case resolution conference at least five business days ahead, to review the case documents in the managing office's possession beforehand, to know the names of participating witnesses known to that office, to present information and call witnesses, and to initiate an appeal. CSCR separately publishes a roster of trained volunteer Student Conduct Advisors, stating they “can assist students through any part of the conduct process, such as attending a case intake meeting, supporting preparation for an case resolution conference or assisting in writing an appeal”: Support Through the Process — CSCR (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 30, 2026). What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.
Where the documents live
| Document | Location |
|---|---|
| Academic Integrity — Faculty Resources (reporting steps, resolution paths, sanctions criteria) | udel.edu — Faculty Resources |
| Student Guide to University Policies — IV. Rights | udel.edu — Student Guide, Rights |
| Student Guide — X. Retention and Release of Records | udel.edu — Student Guide, Retention and Release of Records |
| Student Conduct Advisors (Support Through the Process) | udel.edu — Support Through the Process |
| AI Working Group — Considerations for Integrating AI Within Teaching and Learning (PDF, AI-detector caution) | udel.edu — Considerations PDF |
| CTAL — Advanced Automated Tools in Teaching and Learning | ctal.udel.edu — Advanced Automated Tools |
| Graduate College — Steps to Graduation (iThenticate instruction) | udel.edu — Steps to Graduation |
| Canvas@UD — Respondus LockDown Browser announcement | sites.udel.edu — Respondus LockDown Browser for Canvas Quizzes |
| Community Standards & Conflict Resolution | 413 Academy Street, Newark, DE 19716 · 302-831-2117 · communitystandards@udel.edu (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 30, 2026) |
| Student Advocacy & Support (published services do not name academic-integrity allegations) | udel.edu — Student Advocacy & Support · 413 Academy Street · 302-831-8939 · studentsupport@udel.edu (retrieved Aug 30, 2026) |
Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.
Revision history of this page
2026-08-30 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the udel.edu, ctal.udel.edu and sites.udel.edu pages linked beside them. Source dates as published: the Considerations PDF carries May 1, 2024 in its file metadata (no on-page date); the CTAL Advanced Automated Tools page is marked revised Apr 16, 2026; the Canvas@UD Respondus post is dated Feb 11, 2025; the CSCR and Student Guide pages display no on-page dates. Detection-inventory sweep recorded here: named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI indicator, SimCheck, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) plus category sweep (Canvas@UD tool and LTI pages, the IT knowledge-base generative-AI directive, guidelines and services list, the graduate thesis pipeline, the proctoring stack, and the CTAL and academic-integrity pages). Findings: iThenticate documented in the graduate thesis/dissertation submission workflow; Respondus LockDown Browser enabled for Canvas quizzes with UD stating Respondus Monitor is not available; no AI-writing detector documented anywhere campus-wide, and the AI Working Group's published caution against AI detectors quoted in section 01. All other vendors and categories came back empty on UD's own pages. Deliberate omissions: legacy Turnitin training PDFs from UD's English Language Institute (2011, Sakai-era) were located and omitted as superseded historical material naming no current deployment; a UD educational-technology course site discussing detection tools was omitted as course material, not institutional policy; the IT knowledge-base generative-AI guidelines (TeamDynamix) were fetched and contain no detection statement. The Student Guide pages and the two IT knowledge-base articles were captured as text this date; nothing on this page is paraphrase-pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-30). Internet Archive captures: to be added.
2026-09-01 — Source re-verification. All ten linked sources re-fetched and compared against this page: the Considerations for Integrating AI PDF, the AI for Teaching and Learning hub, the Graduate College's Steps to Graduation, the Respondus LockDown Browser announcement, the CTAL Advanced Automated Tools page, and the four Community Standards & Conflict Resolution pages (Rights, Faculty Resources, Retention and Release of Records, Support Through the Process) — all unchanged and every quotation verbatim, including the AI Working Group's caution against AI detectors and both the iThenticate and Respondus LockDown Browser statements. One capture-tooling artifact is noted rather than acted on: this review's automated capture renders the Respondus post's em dashes as double hyphens; a direct fetch confirms the live page still uses an em dash exactly as quoted on this page, so no correction was needed. Detection sweep re-run (named-vendor and category); no second detector and no campus-wide AI-writing-detector statement found — the absence stated in section 01 stands. Office contacts re-confirmed against their own pages: Community Standards & Conflict Resolution (302-831-2117, communitystandards@udel.edu, 413 Academy Street) and the Student Advocacy & Support office (302-831-8939, studentsupport@udel.edu) are unchanged, including the scope note that UD does not describe the latter as independent or confidential and that its published services do not name academic-integrity allegations. This is a source re-verification pass, not human review.
Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.