West Virginia University.

What WVU's own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

The rewritten policy states that academic-integrity hearings are “handled under the hearing procedures in Section V” of the Policy itself, and Section V answers this question directly: “The student may be accompanied at the hearing by an advisor, including an attorney. Any attorney appearing on a student's behalf must be licensed to practice law in the State of West Virginia and may actively participate in the hearing. An advisor who is not an attorney may consult with the student during the hearing but may not actively participate in the proceeding, including by speaking on the student's behalf, examining witnesses, or making arguments.” On recording: “Hearings will be recorded. The University will maintain the recording. Participants are prohibited from making their own recordings.” — WVU Policy on Student Academic Integrity, sections II.f, V.f and V.m (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) · WVU Policy on Student Academic Integrity. A divergence from the general Campus Student Code is recorded rather than resolved: the Code's own Section 9.10, unchanged since the last review, states: “The advisor may be an individual that is either a member of the faculty, staff, or a student at West Virginia University. Advisors not affiliated with the university may participate in the proceedings consistent with the Hearing Adjudicator's instructions,” and that “failure to secure an advisor or legal counsel will not cause a hearing to be postponed or canceled” — a less restrictive standard for a non-attorney advisor's role than the Policy's own Section V.f now states, and written for hearings on charges seeking suspension or expulsion specifically rather than the wider set Section V now covers (also unforgivable failure and program dismissal). The Code also permits a student-requested court reporter at the student's own expense, an option the Policy's current text does not mention. — Campus Student Code, sections 9.10 and 9.15 (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) · Campus Student Code

What follows on the record

The rewritten policy no longer publishes the specific retention periods this page previously quoted — a seven-year record for lesser sanctions, permanent transcript notation for suspension, dismissal or expulsion, and a permanent notation for the Unforgivable Failure grade. Its current text states only: “Case records will be retained in accordance with the University's records retention schedule.” That schedule is not linked from the policy and was not located separately in this review, so the specific retention periods are not stated in the sources reviewed as of this date — a narrower absence than the one this page previously reported. Unforgivable Failure of the course remains listed among the policy's grade-related sanctions, without the defining paragraph the superseded version carried. The policy also states that a violation resolved on the informal track “will not appear in the student's academic discipline record if the student completes the assigned educational measures on time.” On expungement or removal, and on disclosure to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards: not stated in the sources reviewed. — WVU Policy on Student Academic Integrity, sections II.d and V.o, and the sanctions listed at VII.a (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) · WVU Policy on Student Academic Integrity

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

This whole subsection was rewritten in this review: the policy quoted throughout the superseded version of this page was replaced, at a new address, with a restructured document that answers the same questions differently in several places. What changed and what it replaced is recorded in the change log. The rewritten WVU Policy on Student Academic Integrity (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Sep 1, 2026) states, on how a matter starts and the two windows at the front of it:

The Office then screens what it receives: “The Office of Academic Integrity only opens a case if there are reasonable grounds to believe that academic dishonesty may have occurred. If a case is opened, the Office will contact the student, and the student may not withdraw from the course at issue.” A student who wants to know why is told: “When a case is opened, the Office of Academic Integrity will send a notification to the student outlining the concern and what part of this policy it implicates.”

Which track a matter takes, and what the informal one offers:

A student who instead contests the allegation or the proposed outcome gets a different route: “A student who contests the allegation or the proposed outcome may request a meeting with the Office of Academic Integrity by following the instructions in the letter. At the meeting, the Office will share the evidence and the student may respond. The Office will then decide whether a violation occurred and what sanctions apply, and will notify the student in writing.” Where the case instead heads to a hearing, the policy now says so directly rather than by cross-reference: “If an unforgivable F, suspension, program dismissal, or expulsion may be sought, the case is handled under the hearing procedures in Section V.”

Where the formal track's procedure now comes from — the policy's own Section V, not the Campus Student Code it pointed to before — and the standard of proof it applies:

The rewritten Section V adds procedural detail the superseded version did not carry directly, including a disclosure window — “The Notice of Hearing and all evidence the University intends to present at the hearing shall be provided to the student no fewer than seven (7) calendar days before the hearing. The student shall provide the University with all evidence the student intends to present no fewer than seven (7) calendar days before the hearing” — continuance rules, witness sequestration and a fixed order of events. On non-attendance: “If the student fails to appear at a hearing for which proper notice was provided, the hearing may proceed without the student. No inference will be drawn from the student's absence, and the Hearing Adjudicator may make findings and impose sanctions based on the evidence presented.”

The sanctions the rewritten policy lists are grouped in three bands: educational measures (required modules, tutorials, reflective assignments or community service); grade-related sanctions (a reduced grade or zero on the assignment, a reduced grade or failure in the course, failure of the course with exclusion from further participation, or unforgivable failure of the course); and disciplinary sanctions (a written reprimand, disciplinary probation, suspension, dismissal from an academic program, or expulsion). On appeal, the policy states:

The policy lists four grounds of appeal — that the decision “was arbitrary, capricious, or clearly unreasonable based on the information presented”; that it “reflected discrimination prohibited by the University or demonstrable prejudice in the decision-making process”; that it “imposed an unreasonably severe penalty”; or that it “did not account for information that was not available during the proceeding” — down from the six the superseded version listed. Sanctions including Unforgivable Failure “are paused while an appeal is pending. The grade on the underlying assignment or in the course is not paused.”

One further first-party detail worth setting beside the rest of this page's finding about detection tools: the rewritten policy's own definition of prohibited conduct names “Cheating: using unauthorized resources, help, or technology on academic work” — generic language that does not name artificial intelligence, generative AI or any detection tool, consistent with the absence stated in section 01.

Source for the blocks above: WVU Policy on Student Academic Integrity. A discrepancy between WVU's own pages, already present at the last review and now sharper, is recorded rather than smoothed over: the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities' Academic Integrity Process page still describes the tracks under the older labels “Course-Level Process” and “Academic Dishonesty Conduct Process” and cites section numbers that match neither the August 15, 2023 policy's numbering nor the current one. Any date above is quoted from the policy, not a deadline calculation performed for you. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-08-29 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date, first-party, from the wvu.edu pages linked beside them. Source page dates: the Policy on Student Academic Integrity states it was revised August 15, 2023; BOG Academics Rule 2.5 states it was adopted May 22, 2018 and effective June 11, 2018; the Online Proctored Exam Standard states it is effective July 12, 2022, originally effective March 4, 2019, with a review date of July 11, 2025; the Libraries' ChatGPT guide states it was created June 21, 2023 and last updated October 2, 2025. The Campus Student Code, the Academic Integrity Process page, the office contact page, the AI FAQ, the AI Learning Modules page, the eCampus Turnitin page, the ITS Faculty and Staff Resources page, the Graduate Student Ombudsperson page and the Advocacy Center page display no on-page date; each is recorded with its retrieval date only. One correction to a working assumption is recorded here for the next reviewer: the Board of Governors rule on student rights and responsibilities is Academics Rule 2.5, not 2.4.

2026-08-29 — Detection sweep recorded. Named-vendor sweep: Turnitin (including the AI writing indicator and the SimCheck and Originality product names), Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity were searched against wvu.edu. Two came back positive as institutional deployments: Turnitin, documented as Originality Checking inside eCampus, and Respondus LockDown Browser, named on the same ITS page as a vendor-supported eCampus tool. GPTZero appeared only inside an outside news headline in a library-guide link list and is not recorded as a deployment. All other vendors came back empty, including iThenticate anywhere on the domain. Category sweep: the eCampus instructional-tools pages are the closest published equivalent to a learning-management integration catalogue and name Turnitin and Respondus and no detector beyond them; the ITS policy set contributes the vendor-neutral Online Proctored Exam Standard; WVU Graduate Education, the electronic thesis and dissertation route and the research repository name no similarity or plagiarism screening step at all; the Office of Academic Integrity's student and faculty resources, including its AI FAQ, name no detector; the Campus Student Code names none either; the Libraries' ChatGPT guide carries a detection sentence credited on its face to the University of Arizona Global Campus and is recorded above with that provenance rather than as WVU's position. Step-2 disqualification check: pass. No WVU page disables AI detection or recommends against it across the board; the sole first-party characterization located is the Office of Academic Integrity's description of its own faculty training module, quoted above at that scope. The absence of any first-party statement on AI-writing detection, in either direction, is recorded as the finding rather than resolved by inference. Deliberate omissions. Third-party tracker, vendor-blog and student-press claims about WVU were disregarded as unverified and are neither quoted nor linked. Nothing on this page addresses WVU's program changes or any litigation, which are outside what this page is for.

2026-08-29 — Limits on the sweep, recorded so a later reviewer can tell a thorough negative from an unasked question. WVU's full IT Help Center service catalogue requires WVU login credentials and could not be inspected, so a complete external-tool and integration catalogue was not available to this review; the Turnitin and Respondus findings rest on the public ITS page instead. The eCampus Respondus LockDown Browser page is likewise authentication-gated and returned a login error. Four further pages returned an empty body to a plain fetch and are not relied on: the Provost-hosted artificial-intelligence FAQ, for which the equivalent page on the Office of Academic Integrity's own site was captured and quoted instead; the “Meet the GSO” subpage of the Graduate Student Ombudsperson site, so that office's email address and any phone number remain unverified and the docket says so; and the Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities' contact page, which is why no phone, email or room is stated for that office here. The advisor, attorney and hearing-advisor request forms linked from the Campus Student Code are hosted on a third-party survey platform and were not opened. The faculty and student AI learning modules are hosted off the wvu.edu domain and were not read; only WVU's own description of them is quoted. All of these are paraphrase-pending and need a manual browser read before promotion.

2026-08-29 — Absences and discrepancies recorded at the scope actually searched. No expungement, removal or record-sealing procedure for academic-integrity records is published. No provision on disclosure to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards is published, though the policy's own language about a “disclosable academic discipline record” contemplates that disclosure exists. No ombudsperson serving undergraduates was located: the Student Life support-and-advocacy index lists seventeen departments and no ombuds office, the Graduate Student Ombudsperson serves graduate and professional students, and the Faculty Ombudsperson serves faculty; the docket says so rather than listing an office that excludes this page's reader as though it were available. The Office of Academic Integrity's contact page publishes a street address, a mailing address, a phone number and an email address but no room number. A search index returned a different phone number for that office than the live page displays; the live page's number is the one carried here. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-08-29).

2026-09-01 — Source re-verification. Sources re-fetched and compared against this page. SUBSTANTIVE FINDING: the WVU Policy on Student Academic Integrity was rewritten and moved from academicintegrity.wvu.edu/student-resources/student-academic-integrity (which now redirects to a bare “Student Resources” landing page carrying no policy text) to provost.wvu.edu/academic-integrity/policies/student-academic-integrity/. The rewritten policy restructures the document (ten numbered sections replacing the prior numbering), states its own complete hearing procedure (Section V) rather than pointing to the Campus Student Code's Section 9 as the superseded version did, shortens the reporting window (ten calendar days from discovery, no more than thirty calendar days after the incident, replacing fourteen days from discovery and a one-year outer limit), narrows the program exclusions to Dentistry and Medicine programs only (dropping Pharmacy and the College of Law), reduces the appeal grounds from six to four, and replaces the specific record-retention periods this page previously quoted (seven years for lesser sanctions, permanent transcript notation for suspension, dismissal or expulsion, a permanent Unforgivable Failure notation) with a general, unlinked reference to “the University's records retention schedule.” Every quotation in sections 01 and 02 drawing on this policy has been replaced with the current text; the change is described at each location rather than only here. All other sources on this page were re-fetched and found unchanged and verbatim: the Graduate Student Ombudsperson page, the Advocacy Center page, the ITS Faculty and Staff Resources page, the AI Learning Modules page, the WVU Libraries ChatGPT guide, the Campus Student Code (including sections 9.10 and 9.15, quoted on this page and unchanged), BOG Academics Rule 2.5, and the Artificial Intelligence FAQ. The Online Proctored Exam Standard was also revised (new effective date September 17, 2025, new review date September 16, 2028): its consequences clause is unchanged and verbatim, but its definitional sentence naming “Proctoring Service” now reads as part of a purpose statement naming “Proctoring Services” (plural); read this date directly in a browser session, since the page continues to serve almost no text to a plain fetch, and the full text is retained in tools/supplied/. CORRECTION: the Office of Academic Integrity's published phone number changed from (304) 293-8111 to (304) 293-5218; the address, PO Box, email and office hours are unchanged. UNREACHABLE THIS PASS: the eCampus Turnitin knowledge-base article (ecampusinfo.wvu.edu/getting-started/instructional-tools/turnitin) served only a JSON application payload to automated capture and could not be located again by searching inside the KB in a browser session; its quotation is retained as last verified 2026-08-29 and is corroborated independently by the unchanged ITS Faculty and Staff Resources page, which is not itself in question — needs a manual check next review. Detection sweep re-run: the same fourteen named vendors were checked again against wvu.edu by search, plus a combined search for AI-detection language generally; no second detector and no campus-wide AI-indicator statement were found, so the absence stated in section 01 stands. Office and ombuds contacts otherwise re-confirmed against their own pages. This is a source re-verification pass; it does not constitute human review of the rewritten sections above, which a person should read before the next deploy.

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