Weber State University.
- Detection status
- Copyleaks plagiarism and AI content detection among WSU Online's approved Canvas tools; CETL states some detection software “may unfairly penalize students or be ineffective at detecting AI use”; Honorlock proctoring documents no general AI blocking; no institution-level Turnitin documentation located
- Office in these sources
- Dean of Students Office · Miller Administration 317, WSU Ogden; mailing address 3850 Dixon Parkway Dept 1017, Ogden, UT 84408-1017 · 801-626-7256 · no central office email is published in these sources — the office's page lists individual staff addresses only · office hours Monday–Friday 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. · weber.edu — Dean of Students Office
- Ombuds or advocacy office
- Weber State publishes an Ombuds office, but its own page states it is for faculty: “Informal problem solving and conflict management for all full and part-time Weber State Faculty.” It is therefore not a resource for the student this page serves. Its contact, as published: Dr. Theresa Kay, Faculty Ombuds, LH 384 · facultyombuds@weber.edu · weber.edu — Faculty Ombuds. No separate student ombuds or independent student-advocacy office was located on the institution's own pages in this review. The Dean of Students Office states that it “serves students who need assistance navigating other university processes,” but that is the same office the Student Code makes “primarily responsible for resolving alleged violations of the Student Code,” so it is not independent of the matter.
- Sources last checked
- Aug 28, 2026
Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.
Weber State's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. The governing document is PPM 6-22, the Student Code (created April 20, 1977; last amended May 21, 2026), whose section 6.4 lists the prohibited academic conduct and whose section 10 sets the due-process framework; the operative step-by-step procedure for an academic-misconduct case is published separately as the Academic Misconduct petition process under Student Petitions, Complaints & Grievances. Weber State publishes no single university-wide rule on classroom AI use: its CETL and AI pages set out sample syllabus language across a prohibit / limited-use / full-use range and leave the choice to the instructor, so the course syllabus carries the AI rule. 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.
AI content detection is documented at Weber State — through Copyleaks, with the university's own caution beside it
WSU Online's approved-tools list names Copyleaks among the tools “Available within your Canvas courses” (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026):
Source: Approved and Commonly Used Educational Tools — weber.edu/online/toolguide.html. That is the institution's own statement that the tool it licenses into Canvas detects AI-generated content, not only similarity. The page's Copyleaks entry links onward to the vendor's instructor documentation and to a vendor-hosted testing-methodology page; those are Copyleaks' materials, not Weber State's, and nothing on this page is drawn from them.
Weber State's Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning addresses detection directly, under the heading “Use detection software thoughtfully in conjunction with your fair judgment” (instructor-facing, quoted because it describes the process a student experiences; no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026):
Source: Teaching in the Age of AI — weber.edu/cetl/teaching-ai.html. Two provenance points on that passage. GPTZero is named there as software “some faculty may engage with”; it does not appear on WSU Online's approved-tools list, and no first-party page was located showing Weber State licensing or deploying it — the mention is an acknowledgement, not a documented deployment. And the passage is guidance to faculty, not a rule limiting what a detector's output may be used to prove. No campus-wide statement addressing the evidentiary weight of an AI-detection score in a misconduct case was located in this review; that absence is stated here rather than filled in.
The proctoring stack is documented separately, and its own page states what it does not do. From WSU Online's Honorlock page (retrieved Aug 26, 2026; re-verified Aug 28, 2026 — the “New September 1, 2026: Honorlock Workspace Scan” notice present at build has since been removed in a reorganization of the page into Faculty and Student FAQ sections; the quotations below remain verbatim):
Source: Using Honorlock in Canvas — weber.edu/online/honorlock.html. The same page states that Honorlock “Records video/audio/screen during the active session only; access is limited to authorized faculty/proctoring staff and retained per university policy (typically ~1 year),” and that “Exam recordings are treated as education records.” Scope: this is exam proctoring, not written-work AI detection, and the page makes no AI-writing-detection claim.
One further similarity pipeline appears on the same approved-tools list, scoped to work submitted through Google: the Google Assignments entry states it will “Distribute, collect, and grade student work using Google Docs and Drive within Canvas. Includes plagiarism detection and streamlined file submissions.” Source: weber.edu/online/toolguide.html. Weber State makes no AI-detection claim for it. Respondus appears on the same list under “Available outside of Canvas LMS” as exam authoring — “Format, import, and manage exams for Canvas” — with no detection or proctoring claim, and Packback appears as a discussion tool with none either.
On Turnitin, the finding is a distinction rather than a tool. Turnitin does not appear on WSU Online's current approved-tools list. It does appear on an individual faculty member's course-policies page hosted on weber.edu, which states “WSU subscribes to Turnitin.com, an electronic service that verifies the originality of student work,” and points to a wsuonline.weber.edu best-practices address that no longer resolves. Source: faculty.weber.edu/eamsel — Course Policies (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026). An instructor page asserting a subscription is not the university documenting a current deployment, and the two are kept separate here: no current institution-level Turnitin documentation was located in this review.
Stating the absence at the scope actually searched: no AI-detection tool beyond Copyleaks was located in this review across the named vendors — Turnitin and its SimCheck and Originality product names, iThenticate, Copyleaks, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity — nor in WSU Online's Canvas integration and approved-tools list, the Honorlock and testing pages, the university's AI services pages (which list Adobe Express, Adobe Firefly, Gemini, Grammarly, Khanmigo, Microsoft Copilot, NotebookLM and Zoom AI Companion as approved AI services, none of them described as a detector), the CETL teaching-and-AI pages, or the Dean of Students academic-integrity pages. Weber State's graduate programs are searched here as part of the same sweep; no separate graduate, thesis or dissertation originality-checking pipeline, and no iThenticate deployment, was located on the institution's own pages.
What Weber State's own documents say about how cases proceed
- Who may be present
- “Yes, at the first meeting, hearings, and any other point in the Student Code process, the student may have an advisor of their choice present (in person, via phone, or via video conference). They must alert the DOS Office beforehand. These advisors can be support people, friends, family, or legal representation.” — Dean of Students Office, Student Conduct Process (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) · weber.edu — Student Conduct Process. In the academic-misconduct track specifically, the published petition process states the advisor's role more narrowly: “The parties may have an advisor present who may only advise the student and may not actively participate in the informal process.” — weber.edu — Academic Misconduct (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026). PPM 6-22 §3.3 defines an advisor as “any individual selected by the respondent or complainant to attend the pre-hearing conference or hearing, including legal counsel, if desired.” On recording: not stated in the sources reviewed. PPM 6-22 §6.6 governs student recording of classes and other “non-public University-sponsored academic experiences” and requires a faculty member's permission for those; it does not address recording a conduct meeting or hearing, and no such provision was located in PPM 6-22, the Student Conduct Process page, or the Academic Misconduct petition process.
- What follows on the record
- “Expulsion. Permanent separation of the student from the University. A permanent indication of expulsion will be made on the student's transcript.” The same section states of suspension: “Separation of the student from the University for a specified or indefinite period of time. Temporary and/or permanent notification may appear on the student's transcript.” — PPM 6-22, Student Code, §§11.3.2.9 and 11.3.2.8 (created 4-20-77; amended 9-13-18, 4-21-21, 5-19-22, 5-16-23, 05.21.2026; retrieved Aug 26, 2026) · weber.edu — PPM 6-22 Student Code. §11.3.2.7 adds that a deferred suspension “may be accompanied by a transcript remark.” On retention and disclosure: no retention period, and no provision on disclosure to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards, was located in PPM 6-22, on the Dean of Students pages, or in the Academic Misconduct petition process. What the institution does state is that the Dean of Students Office “enforces the Student Code, maintains student conduct records,” and separately that it “maintain[s] a database of student academic misconduct, and may become involved after two or more incidents of academic misconduct” — weber.edu — Dean of Students Office (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026). PPM 6-22 §9.3 routes record questions elsewhere: “The complete listing of official student records, information regarding their confidentiality, their access, and the access and/or accuracy of the challenge/hearing process, may be obtained from the Registrar.”
The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.
The conduct that a case is built on is listed in PPM 6-22 §6.4.2 (retrieved Aug 26, 2026), and the reporting obligation and referral route in §6.5:
Source: PPM 6-22, Student Code. The same policy sets out what due process is taken to include (§§10.2.2.1–10.2.2.5): “adequate notice of the charges or basis of action,” “an impartial decision maker,” “an opportunity to be heard,” “an opportunity to present evidence to the decision maker,” and “a decision based on the record with a statement of the basis for the decision.” It also places academic dishonesty in the academic-issues track (§10.3.2.1), where “Academic complaints are generally reviewed within the academic program in which they arose.”
The three-level procedure and the standard applied are published on the Academic Misconduct page under Student Petitions, Complaints & Grievances (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Aug 26, 2026):
Source: Academic Misconduct — weber.edu/complaint/academicmisconduct.html. The same page describes the informal meeting where the Dean of Students is involved: “In this meeting, the student will be informed of the allegations and be allowed to provide his or her side of the story, including any relevant evidence,” and states that “In instances where it is foreseeable that a sanction of expulsion or suspension for ten days or more may be applied, the student shall be notified of this right prior to being interviewed about allegations of misconduct.” On the committee itself, it states that the petition is reviewed by a body “made up of 5 individuals who can engage in independent judgment,” of whom “At least one of these individuals must be a student and at least one must be a faculty member from the college in which the issue arose,” with objections for good cause going to the Due Process Officer.
Located but not captured as a quotation here, and recorded so a reader knows where to look: the Dean of Students Office's Student Conduct Process page also describes the conduct-track steps that apply where a matter is referred to that office — written notification of the alleged violation with a required initial meeting, one week for the student to respond and schedule it, an informal hearing at which “The student will be provided with evidence of the allegations,” a decision on the “preponderance of the evidence” standard, a Findings Meeting and a decision letter stating the rationale, the sanctions and the appeal route, and a formal hearing before the Student Code Review Committee on appeal. The sanctions PPM 6-22 makes available run from grade adjustment and loss of credit (§§11.3.1.1–11.3.1.2) through warning, reprimand, probation, suspension of privileges and services, deferred suspension, suspension and expulsion (§§11.3.2.1–11.3.2.9), and §11.4 gives a hearing committee power to set aside a sanction it finds unjustified “based on the greater weight of the evidence,” while §11.5 preserves the faculty member's academic freedom over grading. PPM 6-22's own academic-dishonesty remedy provision states that where “the hearing committee determines that the charge of academic dishonesty has not been proven, the faculty member shall rescind any reduced grade for academic dishonesty and shall evaluate and grade the student's performance in the course, examination, or academic assignment without consideration of the charge of academic dishonesty.” What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.
Where the documents live
| Document | Location |
|---|---|
| PPM 6-22 — Student Code (created 4-20-77; last amended 05.21.2026) | weber.edu/ppm/policies/6-22_studentcode.html |
| Academic Misconduct — petition process, standard of review, and the three levels | weber.edu/complaint/academicmisconduct.html |
| Student Petitions, Complaints & Grievances (index of petition routes) | weber.edu/complaint |
| Dean of Students Office — Student Conduct Process (advisor, notice, hearings, appeal) | weber.edu/dean-of-students/student-conduct-process.html |
| Dean of Students Office — Academic Integrity | weber.edu/dean-of-students/academic-integrity.html |
| Dean of Students Office (contact) | Miller Administration 317, WSU Ogden · 3850 Dixon Parkway Dept 1017, Ogden, UT 84408-1017 · 801-626-7256 · no central office email published (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 26, 2026) · weber.edu/dean-of-students |
| Approved and Commonly Used Educational Tools (Copyleaks, Google Assignments, Honorlock, Respondus, Packback) | weber.edu/online/toolguide.html |
| Teaching in the Age of AI (CETL — detection-software caution; syllabus policy language) | weber.edu/cetl/teaching-ai.html |
| Using Honorlock in Canvas (proctoring scope, Proctorio removal, recording retention) | weber.edu/online/honorlock.html |
| AI for Students — approved AI services and sample syllabus statements | weber.edu/ai/students.html |
| AI for Faculty — approved-tools guidance, links to CETL | weber.edu/ai/faculty.html |
| Instructor course-policies page asserting a Turnitin subscription (individual faculty page; provenance noted in section 01) | faculty.weber.edu/eamsel — Course Policies |
| Faculty Ombuds (serves faculty; not a student office) | Dr. Theresa Kay, LH 384 · facultyombuds@weber.edu (from the office's pages, retrieved Aug 26, 2026) · weber.edu/ombuds |
| Transcript notation and sanctions (PPM 6-22 §11.3); student records routed to the Registrar (§9.3) | weber.edu/ppm/policies/6-22_studentcode.html |
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
2026-08-26 — Page created. All quotations captured this date, first-party, from the weber.edu pages linked beside them; every source was fetched as text and read rather than summarized. Source dates: PPM 6-22 carries its own record of creation (4-20-77) and amendment (9-13-18; 4-21-21; 5-19-22; 5-16-23; 05.21.2026); the Honorlock page carries a dated notice for September 1, 2026; the remaining pages display no on-page date, which is stated beside each quotation. Detection sweep recorded for a later reviewer. Named-vendor sweep — Turnitin (including SimCheck and Originality), iThenticate, Copyleaks, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity: Copyleaks found and documented as deployed in Canvas; Honorlock found as the proctoring tool, with its own page stating it does not provide general AI blocking; Proctorio found only as removed; Respondus and Packback found on the approved-tools list with no detection claim; GPTZero found only as software the CETL page says “some faculty may engage with,” not as a deployment; Turnitin found only on an individual faculty course-policies page hosted on weber.edu, not on any current institutional list — recorded as a provenance distinction, not as a deployment. iThenticate, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Examity and Grammarly Authorship: nothing located. Category sweep — Canvas integration and approved-tools catalogue (Copyleaks, Google Assignments' plagiarism detection); graduate, thesis and dissertation pipeline (nothing located, no separate originality-checking workflow and no iThenticate); proctoring and exam-integrity stack (Honorlock only, Proctorio removed); the university's AI services pages, which list Adobe Express, Adobe Firefly, Gemini, Grammarly, Khanmigo, Microsoft Copilot, NotebookLM and Zoom AI Companion as approved AI services, none described as a detector; teaching-centre and Dean of Students academic-integrity guidance. Disqualification check run on the completed inventory: Weber State has not disabled or recommended against AI detection across the board — CETL cautions that “some detection software may unfairly penalize students or be ineffective at detecting AI use” while Copyleaks remains on the approved Canvas tools list, so the caution is recorded on the page beside the deployment rather than treated as a disqualification. Deliberate omissions: the vendor-hosted Copyleaks instructor guide and testing-methodology pages linked from WSU Online's tool guide are Copyleaks' own materials and nothing is drawn from them; a Symplicity-hosted “Report a Concern” form linked from the Dean of Students pages is a reporting intake, not a policy document, and is omitted; the CETL page's sample syllabus language is adapted from another institution's guidance where it says so, and only Weber State's own framing around it is quoted. No paraphrase-pending items — every page relied on was captured as text in this run; the one paragraph presented as paraphrase (the Student Conduct Process step sequence) is labelled as such on the page and was read first-party, condensed for length rather than for want of capture. Absences recorded as findings: no campus-wide statement on the evidentiary weight of AI-detection output; no rule on recording a conduct meeting or hearing; no conduct-record retention period and no disclosure provision for graduate programs, employers or licensing boards; no central Dean of Students email; no student ombuds or independent student-advocacy office. Automated research pass. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-26). Internet Archive captures: to be added.
2026-08-28 — Sources re-fetched and compared this date. Every linked weber.edu source was retrieved and checked against the quotations above: WSU Online's approved-tools list (the Copyleaks "Detect plagiarism and AI-generated content" line, the Google Assignments plagiarism-detection line, and the Respondus and Packback entries all intact), the CETL "Teaching in the Age of AI" page (the three detection-software passages verbatim, still under the "Use detection software thoughtfully" heading), the Honorlock page, PPM 6-22 Student Code (still created 4-20-77 with amendment history 9-13-18, 4-21-21, 5-19-22, 5-16-23, 05.21.2026; every §6.4, §10, §11 and §9.3 quotation intact), the Academic Misconduct petition process (preponderance standard and the three levels verbatim), the Dean of Students Student Conduct Process page (advisor and evidence quotations intact) and Dean of Students home page (office role and records language intact), the individual-faculty course-policies page (the Turnitin-subscription sentence intact, its best-practices link still not resolving), and the Faculty Ombuds page (the "all full and part-time Weber State Faculty" scope line intact; Dr. Theresa Kay, LH 384, facultyombuds@weber.edu). The AI-for-Students page still lists Adobe Express, Adobe Firefly, Gemini, Grammarly, Khanmigo, Microsoft Copilot, NotebookLM and Zoom AI Companion as the approved AI services, none described as a detector. Office contact re-confirmed — Miller Administration 317; 3850 Dixon Parkway Dept 1017, Ogden, UT 84408-1017; 801-626-7256; Monday–Friday 8 a.m. – 5 p.m. (the page now lists Paige Zarogoza-Davies as Interim Dean of Students).
2026-08-28 — One source change recorded. WSU Online's Honorlock page was reorganized into Faculty and Student FAQ accordions and no longer displays the "New September 1, 2026: Honorlock Workspace Scan" dated notice that was quoted at build; the three Honorlock quotations this page relies on ("Honorlock is the only available online proctoring service provided in Canvas at WSU"; the Proctorio-removed line; and "The Honorlock Application controls desktop software, not websites. It does not provide general AI blocking beyond the browser controls already in place") were re-located on the current page and remain verbatim, and the ~1-year retention and education-record statements are also intact. The section 01 parenthetical was updated to record the notice's removal.
2026-08-28 — Detection sweep re-run; no change. Copyleaks remains the AI-content detector documented on WSU Online's approved-tools list; Honorlock remains the only proctoring service (Proctorio still shown only as removed); Respondus and Packback carry no detection claim; Turnitin still appears only on the individual-faculty page, not on any current institutional list; and iThenticate, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Grammarly Authorship, Proctorio and Examity again came back empty, with GPTZero named only in the CETL passage as software "some faculty may engage with." No graduate or dissertation originality pipeline was located. Step-2 disqualification check: clear pass, unchanged — CETL's caution sits beside Copyleaks' continued listing rather than disabling it. Internet Archive captures still pending: Save Page Now was blocked from this run environment this date.
Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.