The University of Akron.

What Akron's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"The complainant and the respondent have the right to have an advisor of their choice present to provide advice and counsel in any meetings or hearings held by the Department of Student Conduct and Community Standards." The advisor "may only give counsel to their party and may not actively participate in the meeting or hearing." No provision on recording a meeting was located. — The Fact Finding Process / The Hearing Board Process (retrieved Sep 24, 2026) · The Fact Finding Process

What follows on the record

Not stated in the sources reviewed. Akron's Bulletin states that a violation "may result in the imposition of sanctions beyond any imposed, or suggested, by the faculty member involved, and may result in the University revoking any degree awarded," but no transcript-notation, retention, or disclosure provision was located. — Important Policies, Academic Misconduct (2026–2027 Bulletin; retrieved Sep 24, 2026) · Important Policies — Graduate Bulletin

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

Akron's 2026–2027 Bulletin describes academic misconduct and its initial resolution path (retrieved Sep 24, 2026):

Source: Important Policies — Graduate Bulletin. The Department's own Academic Misconduct Procedure page cites this informal-resolution process as "Section (H)" of the Code of Student Conduct, University Rule 3359-41-01, while the Department's separate FAQ page cites the same process as "Section (J)" — both numbers are reproduced here rather than reconciled. Where a matter is contested, Akron's Fact Finding Process page describes a "conversation between a student and a hearing officer" that can end in a not-responsible finding, an agreed sanction, or referral to "the University Hearing Board," a five-member panel for cases where "the respondent denies the alleged misconduct." No evidentiary standard (such as preponderance of the evidence) is stated on any of these pages.

On appeal, the Appeal Process page states: "The complainant and/or respondent shall have five (5) business days from the time that they are notified of an outcome to submit an appeal," on one of five specified grounds (misapplication of the rule, procedural violation, no reasonable basis for the decision, a grossly disproportionate sanction, or new evidence). The Appeals Board is "composed of three hearing officers including one student and at least one faculty member," and "[t]he decision of the Appeals Board is final."

Source: Academic Misconduct Procedure; The Fact Finding Process; The Appeal Process. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; these are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-24 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the uakron.edu, bulletin.uakron.edu and libguides.uakron.edu pages linked beside them; the AI and Information Ethics library guide displays "Last Updated: Sep 4, 2026," the Academic Misconduct policy is drawn from the 2026–2027 Bulletin, and the Department of Student Conduct pages display no on-page date. Detection-inventory sweep performed: named-vendor sweep of uakron.edu (Turnitin, Turnitin AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep of the Department of Student Conduct's own pages, University Libraries' Writing and Citations and AI and Information Ethics guides, and the Bulletin's Academic Misconduct policy. NOT DISQUALIFIED: a genuine empty inventory — no detector was ever documented as in use, so there is nothing to have been disabled or recommended against — the same pattern as Hunter College, NC A&T, University at Albany and the University of Vermont earlier in this queue. One law-school-specific library guide curates third-party AI-detector links (an unnamed "AI detector providing 4 free credits a day" and a named "Writer AI Content Detector") for instructors to try on their own initiative; this is the library's own curation of external tools, not a statement that Akron deploys or endorses any of them, and is recorded as such rather than as institutional detection, the same treatment City Tech's page in this collection gave a similar curated GPTZero mention. Ombuds/advocacy sweep: no office titled ombuds, ombudsperson, or student advocate was found anywhere on uakron.edu. Paraphrase-pending: none. Deliberate omission: two Department of Student Conduct pages cite different Code of Student Conduct section letters for the same informal-resolution process ("Section (H)" on the Academic Misconduct Procedure page, "Section (J)" on the FAQ page); both are reproduced in the page's prose rather than resolved, since resolving which is current would require reading the full Code of Student Conduct PDF (University Rule 3359-41-01), which was not fetched as HTML in this pass. No evidentiary standard, transcript-notation, retention, or disclosure provision was located on any Department of Student Conduct page reviewed. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-24).

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