University of Nevada, Reno.

What UNR's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"During the academic misconduct hearing, the student may be assisted by one (1) advisor of their choosing, if desired." The same policy adds: "The advisor has no right to participate or speak during the hearing, except to the student." On recording: "The hearing, except for deliberations, shall be taped or digitally recorded by the Academic Integrity Board Chair. No other taping or digital recording shall be allowed by any person in attendance at the hearing." — Academic Standards Policy, UAM 6,502, Subsection D (Revised: August 2025; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) · UAM 6,502: Academic Standards

What follows on the record

"If the student accepts responsibility for the academic misconduct charge(s) and academic sanction(s) or does not appeal within the applicable time period, there can be no further appeal. The academic misconduct charge(s) and academic sanction(s) shall become a part of the student's academic record." Where a student is found not responsible: "No academic sanction(s) shall be imposed, and the academic misconduct charge(s) shall be expunged from the student's record." — Academic Standards Policy, UAM 6,502, Subsection D (Revised: August 2025; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) · UAM 6,502: Academic Standards

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

UNR's Academic Standards Policy (UAM 6,502) names "[u]nauthorized use of generative artificial intelligence (AI) content generators or generative AI tools" as one of the acts that constitute cheating under the policy (Subsection A; Revised: August 2025; retrieved Sep 1, 2026):

The policy sets the evidentiary standard for the Academic Integrity Board's decision:

Sanctions are tiered by severity. The policy describes three levels (Subsection C):

On support during the process, the policy also names a Disability Resource Center representative, distinct from the advisor role:

Source: UAM 6,502: Academic Standards. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine, and it is reproduced so you can read the original in context.

A separate, general disciplinary process exists under UNR's Student Code of Conduct (Section IV: Student Disciplinary Procedures), with its own near-identical advisor and recording language and its own ten-working-day appeal window. UAM 6,502 states this process applies to academic misconduct only for a second or subsequent violation during a student's enrollment, or otherwise as the Office of Student Conduct determines appropriate — it is not the process a first academic-misconduct charge goes through, so it is not hoisted into the block above; it is listed in the source map below for completeness rather than quoted as the governing procedure for an AI-cheating allegation.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-01 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date, first-party, from the unr.edu, unr.teamdynamix.com, and nevadaonline.unr.edu pages linked beside them; none of these source pages displays its own last-updated or last-modified date, except UAM 6,502, which is marked "Revised: August 2025". Detection sweep. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin's AI writing indicator by name, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Examity) found none named or documented as deployed on unr.edu. Category sweep of the Teaching & Learning Technologies "Supported technologies" series (Introduction to Turnitin, Using Turnitin, FAQs about Turnitin, Strategies for deterring plagiarism — all four read directly, none mentions an AI-writing feature), the Graduate School's filing guidelines (Turnitin plagiarism check on manuscripts), the Pack AI section (Academic Integrity and AI page, and its cited page titled How can I detect unauthorized AI usage?, which 404s as of this review), the OIT service catalogue, and Nevada Online's student-support pages found Turnitin (plagiarism/similarity) and Respondus (exam proctoring) as the only two systems UNR documents deploying. AI-indicator gap. No first-party UNR page located in this review confirms or denies whether Turnitin's AI-writing-indicator feature is enabled for WebCampus assignments; the docket and section 01 state this as an absence at the scope searched, not as a finding that the feature is off. Scope note on the procedure block. UAM 6,502 (the Academic Standards Policy) contains its own complete academic-misconduct hearing procedure — advisor, DRC representative, recording, and appeal provisions — and that is what section 02's block quotes. The Student Code of Conduct's Section IV governs a separate, general disciplinary process that UAM 6,502 says applies to academic misconduct only for a second or subsequent violation, or as the Office of Student Conduct otherwise determines; its near-identical advisor/recording language was found during research but is not the process a first AI-cheating charge goes through, so it is listed in the source map rather than quoted in the block. Ombuds. No office titled ombuds, advocate, or similar was located; the Dean of Students Office was checked and found to be a separate office from Student Conduct that does not describe itself as independent or confidential and states no role in academic-integrity matters, so the docket records "None located." This is a different campus from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, which was independently excluded in a separate review; nothing from that review was carried across. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-02). 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.