Baruch College.

What Baruch's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

Baruch's own page for students accused of a violation states, "Students are able to bring an advisor with them to the meeting," but "An advisor can not speak for the student, or tell a student what to say." Recording of the meeting is not addressed in the sources reviewed. Where a case is instead disputed to a hearing before the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee, the governing CUNY Bylaws provision applies: the student has the right "to be assisted or represented by an advisor or legal counsel at their expense," and that hearing is recorded — "The college shall make a record of each fact-finding hearing by some means such as a stenographic transcript, an audio recording or the equivalent... No other recording of the proceedings may be permitted." — CUNY Bylaws, Article XV §15.4 (retrieved Sep 15, 2026) · Article XV — CUNY Policy

What follows on the record

Baruch's own page states, of disciplinary sanctions imposed by the Office of the Dean of Students: an admonition "is not shared outside of the Office of the Dean of Students," and likewise a warning "is not shared outside of the Office of the Dean of Students"; "Probations do not appear on your transcript, but they are shared on Dean's Certification forms which are most commonly used when transferring between colleges/universities and job searches"; "Suspensions are noted on the transcript for four years, at which point a student can request to have it removed"; and "Expulsion is noted on transcripts and can not be removed." Not stated in the sources reviewed: disclosure to a graduate program, employer, or licensing board. Source: Students: What to Know if Accused of Academic Integrity Violations (retrieved Sep 15, 2026).

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

Academic integrity at Baruch runs on the CUNY Academic Integrity Policy (rev. Jun 27, 2024, adopted by the CUNY Board of Trustees to add generative-AI language to the 2022 policy; retrieved Sep 15, 2026, the same systemwide document captured for Hunter College), implemented through Baruch's own Office of the Dean of Students. The policy defines cheating to include "the unauthorized use or attempted use of material, information, notes, study aids, devices, artificial intelligence (AI) systems, or communication during an academic exercise," and separately treats "[u]nauthorized use of AI-generated content" as plagiarism if uncited. A faculty member who suspects a violation reports it through Baruch's own incident-reporting portal; Baruch's faculty-facing page states that after the report is filed, "Once the investigation has been completed, a decision will be made for each party involved and you will be notified (most typically by email) of the outcome," with students found either "Responsible" or "Not Responsible." Source: Faculty: Reporting Academic Integrity Violations (retrieved Sep 15, 2026). No reporting-window deadline for faculty is stated in the sources reviewed.

For a student notified of an accusation, Baruch's own page states, "Students are notified by the Office of the Dean of Students when they have been accused of violating an academic integrity policy," and the student meets with a representative of that office. The evidentiary standard is stated directly:

Source: Students: What to Know if Accused of Academic Integrity Violations. If found responsible, a student can receive two separate sanctions: a disciplinary sanction set by the Office of the Dean of Students — "admonition, warning, probation, suspension and expulsion" — and, independently, an academic sanction "assigned by the instructor," most commonly "deduction of points, failure on the exam/assignment, failure in the class or any other sanction stated by the professor in the syllabus." Appeal runs one of two ways, per the same page: to contest only the disciplinary sanction, "email Vice President/Dean of Students Art King with a narrative of your appeal explaining why you believe the decision should be changed"; to contest the finding of responsibility itself, the student instead puts a request for a hearing in writing to the Associate Dean of Students, and the case is heard before the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee, "comprised of faculty, staff and students." No appeal-window deadline is stated on Baruch's own page; where a case reaches that committee, CUNY Bylaws Article XV separately states an appeal from its decision "shall be made in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days after the delivery of the decision appealed from." Source: Article XV — CUNY Policy. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-15 — Page created. First-party material captured from baruch.cuny.edu's several subdomains: provost.baruch.cuny.edu (Turnitin.com@Baruch faculty handbook page), bctc.baruch.cuny.edu (Blackboard/Turnitin technical guides, consulted only to confirm current LMS integration and not quoted), studentaffairs.baruch.cuny.edu (Academic Integrity landing page, the accused-student page, the faculty-reporting page, and the Contact Information page), ombudsman.baruch.cuny.edu (Ombuds Office self-description and contact), cuny.edu (Academic Integrity Policy, rev. Jun 27, 2024, the same systemwide PDF already captured for Hunter College), and policy.cuny.edu (Bylaws Article XV, also already captured for Hunter). SECOND CUNY BUILD, reusing the systemwide finding recorded at Hunter's build without re-verification: the Hostos-documented licensing fact that the CUNY-licensed Turnitin instance lacks AI-generated-content detection, and the CUNY Bylaws Article XV / CUNY Academic Integrity Policy citations, both genuinely systemwide documents rather than campus-specific claims. Campus-specific facts were captured fresh from Baruch's own pages and are not assumed from Hunter or the system level: Baruch's LMS is Blackboard, not Brightspace (Hunter's); Baruch's process is administered by the Office of the Dean of Students directly rather than through a named "Academic Integrity Officer" role; the appeal path offers a choice between an emailed sanction-only appeal to the Vice President/Dean of Students or a hearing request to the Associate Dean of Students; and Baruch publishes an accessible transcript-notation table (warning/admonition not shared outside the office; probation not on transcript; suspension noted four years; expulsion permanent) directly on a student-facing page, rather than only through the Bylaws' committee-hearing provision as at Hunter. Detector sweep: named-vendor sweep (Turnitin, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and category sweep (Provost faculty handbook, BCTC Blackboard guides, Dean of Students academic-integrity pages) found Turnitin confirmed for similarity checking only; no other named vendor returned any first-party hit. Not disqualified: no detector was ever documented as in use for AI-writing detection specifically at Baruch, so neither disqualification branch (no documented detector remains in use; every detector found is disabled or recommended against) is met — Turnitin's similarity function remains actively documented as deployed. Ombuds/advocacy sweep: unlike Hunter, Baruch publishes a standalone Ombuds Office distinct from the office that administers academic-integrity cases, and its own page states it is "a confidential, neutral, and independent resource for faculty, staff, and students" — presented in the docket with that institution-published characterization and no additions of this page's own. Transport note: every baruch.cuny.edu, studentaffairs.baruch.cuny.edu, ombudsman.baruch.cuny.edu, and provost.baruch.cuny.edu page cited returned HTTP 200 to a direct fetch; no browser-tool workaround was needed, unlike hunter.cuny.edu. Not stated in the sources reviewed and recorded as such rather than assumed: any recording provision for the initial Dean of Students meeting (as distinct from a disputed committee hearing); any faculty reporting-window deadline; any appeal-window deadline for the two appeal routes described directly on Baruch's own pages (only the Bylaws committee route states a window); and any disclosure of a sanction to a graduate program, employer, or licensing board. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-15).

2026-09-17 — Internet Archive captures requested this date by an automated capture pass; no human review is claimed for this entry. No quotation, date, finding or link above was changed by it. Each capture below was requested through Save Page Now and then confirmed to play back. Captures added: Turnitin.com@Baruch - Office of The Provost | Baruch College → https://web.archive.org/web/20260917145529/https://provost.baruch.cuny.edu/facultyhandbook/turnitin/; Students: What to Know if Accused of Academic Integrity Violations - Student Affairs | Baruch College → https://web.archive.org/web/20260917145734/https://studentaffairs.baruch.cuny.edu/dean-of-students/academic-integrity/students-what-to-know-if-accused-of-academic-integrity-violations/; Faculty: Reporting Academic Integrity Violations - Student Affairs | Baruch College → https://web.archive.org/web/20260917145805/https://studentaffairs.baruch.cuny.edu/dean-of-students/academic-integrity/faculty-reporting-academic-integrity-violations/; Academic Integrity - Student Affairs | Baruch College → https://web.archive.org/web/20260917145954/https://studentaffairs.baruch.cuny.edu/dean-of-students/academic-integrity/; Contact Information - Student Affairs | Baruch College → https://web.archive.org/web/20260917150025/https://studentaffairs.baruch.cuny.edu/studentaffairs/contact/; Ombudsman - Baruch College → https://web.archive.org/web/20260917150230/https://ombudsman.baruch.cuny.edu/. Not captured because the publisher refuses the Archive's fetcher — each of these returns normally to an ordinary browser, so the source is unchanged and only the capture is missing: Turitin — commons.hostos.cuny.edu (HTTP 200 to the Archive); Article XV – CUNY Policy (HTTP 200 to the Archive); Academicintegritypolicy Rev June 2024 — www.cuny.edu (HTTP 200 to the Archive).

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