Albany State University.

What ASU's Academic Honor Code Policy says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

Both parties "shall have the right to use an advisor (including an attorney)… for the express purpose of providing advice and counsel," who "may advise… in any manner… but shall not participate directly." A student "may have family members accompany them… limited to two (2) family members." The hearing committee "will make an audio recording and written summary of the proceedings… No other recording devices or court reporters are permitted." — Academic Honor Code Policy

What follows on the record

The case record "shall be kept in the student's file and in the Office of Student Conduct for five (5) years or in perpetuity in the case of expulsion," and "suspension and expulsion are noted on the student's academic transcript." A pending case that could end in suspension or expulsion may carry "a temporary encumbrance on a student's transcript." No disclosure provision beyond this is stated. — Academic Honor Code Policy

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

From the Academic Honor Code Policy and its text incorporated verbatim into Chapter VIII of the 2026–2027 Student Code of Conduct (retrieved Oct 19, 2026; no on-page approval date beyond the "26-27" filename): a faculty member who suspects a violation may resolve it through Faculty Disposition (a written notice, an initial meeting, and penalties up to "[f]ailing grade for assignment or exam") or proceed directly to a Faculty Referral. A case not resolved at the faculty level is "processed through the appropriate academic levels prior to referral to the Office of Student Conduct," where it is heard by the Academic Honor Code Committee — five members, including two students — unless the student waives the hearing and requests an administrative one instead. "All formal charges shall be presented to the accused student in written form," with a meeting set "which normally will not be less than three (3) business days and will not be more than twenty (20) calendar days after the student has been presented with the charges." "Normally, a hearing will be conducted in private."

The Committee's findings are "made on the basis of whether, by a preponderance of the evidence presented at the hearing, it is more likely than not that the accused student committed academic dishonesty as charged." The general Student Code of Conduct states the same preponderance standard for all conduct cases and adds: "Any decision to place a Student on Disciplinary Suspension or Expulsion must be supported by substantial evidence" — a second, higher standard reproduced here rather than reconciled with the Honor Code chapter's single preponderance standard, since ASU's own pages do not state how the two interact. Appeal runs by email: "Student must send appeal by electronic mail within five (5) business days after the receipt" of the decision; a second-level appeal is available only "for academic dishonesty cases which include suspension or expulsion." Source: Academic Honor Code Policy and the 2026–2027 Student Code of Conduct. What these quotations mean for any particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; they are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.

Revision history of this page

2026-10-19 — Page created. Priority A tranche 4, entry 281. Cold build (scheduled, unattended); no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts.json research to reuse. Third entry in this pass's batch. All quotations retrieved this date. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI writing detector specifically, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) found only Turnitin, confirmed first-party as plagiarism software for online courses (Graduate Catalog's Cheating and Plagiarism page) and named nowhere as an AI detector. PROCESS-BASED VERIFICATION, found and carried into the status line: the Student Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence policy (filename "Student AI Policy 2025.approved.pdf"; no on-page date displayed) requires students to "[m]ake available, upon request, full transcripts and/or all interactions with AI" and states that "[f]ailure to disclose the use of AI-generated content is considered a violation of academic integrity" — an institution-directed authorship-verification method rather than a detector. EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT: no statement on the evidentiary use of a detector score was located, because no detector is named for one to attach to. DISQUALIFICATION CHECK: not disqualified. CATEGORY SWEEP: the University Policy on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Academic Contexts (filename "University Policy on AI in Academic 2025.approved.pdf") is an AI-governance framework (tool inventory, ethics principles, inventory-review committee chaired by the VP for Academic Affairs) with zero hits for "Turnitin," "detect," "plagiari-," "academic integrity," "misconduct," "dishonesty," or "preponderance" on a full-text search; the 2026-2027 Student Code of Conduct and the standalone Academic Honor Code Policy were also checked in full and name no detection product. PROCESS, FROM THE ACADEMIC HONOR CODE POLICY (incorporated verbatim as Chapter VIII of the 2026-2027 Student Code of Conduct): Faculty Disposition or direct Faculty Referral, escalating to a five-member Academic Honor Code Committee (two students) unless the student waives the hearing for an administrative one; charges presented in writing, with a meeting window "not less than three (3) business days and… not more than twenty (20) calendar days" after the charges are presented. ACCOMPANIMENT: an advisor (attorney permitted) who may not participate directly, plus up to two family members by request. RECORDING: "an audio recording and written summary," custody with the University Judicial Officer, "[n]o other recording devices or court reporters are permitted." EVIDENTIARY STANDARD: "preponderance of the evidence… more likely than not" for the Committee's findings; the general Code separately states "substantial evidence" is required specifically for a suspension or expulsion sanction — two standards reproduced side by side, their interaction not stated on ASU's own pages, the same pattern recorded on other pages in this collection for schools publishing more than one evidentiary standard (e.g., gatech). RECORDS: five-year retention (permanent for expulsion); suspension/expulsion noted on the transcript; a temporary transcript encumbrance is possible in pending suspension/expulsion cases; appeal by email within five business days, a second-level appeal available only for suspension/expulsion cases. OFFICE: Office of Student Support and Student Conduct, East Campus Student Center, 504 College Drive, Albany, GA 31705, 229-500-2052, OSSSC@asurams.edu. The office's own current Student Conduct page confirms the name, address and email, but its phone number renders across two separate DOM nodes split by a hyperlink and a <strong> tag — visible text "(229) 500-2" immediately followed by "052" — which a faithful extraction reproduces with an inserted space rather than as one unbroken number; that page's own tel: link target is also a different, apparently stale number, (229) 500-3554, matching an older departmental PDF ("Resources.pdf") that separately names Angelnique Jordan at a West Campus (Gillionville Rd) location. The clean, unbroken "(229) 500-2052" is instead confirmed from the Hazing Transparency and Max Gruver Report page ("Office of Student Support and Student Conduct | (229) 500-2052 | osssc@asurams.edu") and corroborated by two further asurams.edu pages (a pantry Contact Us page and an Emergency Grant page) and a Student Affairs Directory PDF that pairs the same number with Angelnique Jordan's current title, Associate Dean Student Support/Director Student Conduct — so the Hazing Transparency page, not the Student Conduct landing page, is the source cited for the phone number in the docket and source map. OMBUDS: a bounded sweep (site search for "ombuds" and "student advocacy") returned no results; no ombuds or case-advocacy office was located. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-19).

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