Bellevue University.

What PS 1035 and PS 1901 say about how a case proceeds

Who may be present

Not stated in the sources reviewed. PS 1035 and PS 1901 both describe only a "(verbal or written) discussion" between the faculty member and the student in which the student is given "an opportunity to provide an explanation"; neither names a support person, adviser, or observer for that discussion or for the Dean of Students' subsequent review, and neither addresses whether a meeting may be recorded. PS 1901 does state, of the Code of Conduct generally, that "[p]roof of policy violations obtained via electronic media, including, but not limited to, video, photographs, emails ... can be used as evidence" — a rule about admissible evidence, not a recording permission for a meeting.

What follows on the record

Bellevue's Dean of Students Office states that an "Academic Misconduct" report "is submitted to the Dean of Students Office to record in the Academic Misconduct Repository." Not stated in the sources reviewed: how long that record is retained, whether a violation appears as a transcript notation, or whether it is disclosed to a graduate program, employer, or licensing board — searched in PS 1035, PS 1901, and the Dean of Students Office's own reporting page.

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

PS 1035 (effective Mar 15, 2024) sets the instructor-level process: the faculty member discusses the suspected violation with the student and gives "an opportunity to provide an explanation"; if the explanation is inadequate, the faculty member "may sanction the student" and must document the discussion and notify the Dean of Students' Office, which "will act as a depository and resource for all disciplinary documentation" and "is also responsible for notifying the student of the decision, the sanction being imposed, and the right to appeal." Where multiple incidents exist, the Dean of Students forwards records to the student's college Dean for further review.

Penalties an instructor may impose are capped at "a warning, a reduction in grade, a grade of 'F' on the work in question or, with Dean approval, a grade of 'F' for the course" (PS 1901 §4.a: "These are the only penalties that a faculty member may impose"). Beyond that, a student "may be subject to further disciplinary action up to and including formal reprimand," short-term or long-term suspension, or expulsion, imposed only "by the appropriate administrator at the University." No evidentiary standard — such as "preponderance" — is named in either policy for the underlying determination of misconduct.

Two distinct appeal paths are published, and which applies depends on what is being appealed. For "the determination or the sanctions imposed by the instructor" (the grade-level penalties above), PS 1901 §5 states the student "may appeal the decision within thirty calendar (30) days of the grade posting in BRUIN per the Grade Appeal process in the Academic Catalog." For a Dean of Students' or college-level conduct decision, PS 1901 §8 requires a written appeal "filed with the Dean of Students' Office not later than ten (10) calendar days after the date of the decision," heard by an Appeal Officer — "The Appeal Officer will be designated by the President" — on limited grounds (procedural irregularity, new evidence, or conflict of interest/bias), with a decision "typically issued within fifteen (15) business days" that "shall be final and not subject to further appeal." PS 1035 itself cross-references this second path ("the same appeal procedures as set forth in the Student Code of Conduct") for academic-misconduct determinations generally, so both are reproduced here rather than one being selected as the sole answer.

Sources: PS 1035 — Student Academic Misconduct · PS 1901 — Student Code of Conduct. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-08 — Page created. First-party material captured this date: PS 1035 (Student Academic Misconduct, effective Mar 15, 2024) and PS 1901 (Student Code of Conduct, effective Aug 1, 2025), both fetched as PDFs from bellevue.edu/wp-content/uploads/ and read with a local text-extraction pass; the Library's Faculty Toolkit LibGuide (Turnitin page, last updated Apr 20, 2026); the Student Guide to AI; and the Dean of Students page, read live in a browser because it renders client-side. 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 (PS 1035, PS 1901, Student Guide to AI, Faculty Toolkit LibGuide, AI in Higher Education LibGuide) found only Turnitin. Deliberate finding, not resolved either way: the Faculty Toolkit LibGuide links an "AI Writing Detection FAQ" that resolves to Turnitin's own generic vendor documentation, not a Bellevue-specific statement that the AI-writing indicator is enabled for assignments — recorded as an absence at that scope rather than inferred from the link's presence. Not disqualified: the inventory is silent, not adverse — no Bellevue page recommends against or disables AI detection. Two appeal paths (PS 1901 §5, grade-level, 30 calendar days; PS 1901 §8, Dean-of-Students/conduct-level, 10 calendar days to an Appeal Officer) are both reproduced in Section 02 rather than one being selected, since PS 1035 cross-references the Code of Conduct's appeal procedure generally without specifying which section governs every stage of an academic-misconduct case. Ombuds/advocacy sweep (ombuds, ombudsperson, student advocacy, dean of students advocacy) found none; the Dean of Students Office is the office that investigates, records, and sanctions academic misconduct, so it is recorded as the office in these sources rather than as an independent advocate. Bellevue College (a separate, unrelated Washington community college with its own ombuds office) surfaced in early searches on the shared name and was not used for anything on this page. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-08).

2026-09-13 — Editorial review. Carrie Schluter read this page in full against its recorded first-party sources and found no change required. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-13).

2026-10-06 — Internet Archive captures requested by automated capture passes between 2026-09-09 and 2026-09-26 and recorded this date; 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: Student Guide to AI → https://web.archive.org/web/20260909112906/https://www.bellevue.edu/student-support/student-ai-guide/; PS 1035 — Student Academic Misconduct → https://web.archive.org/web/20260909112941/https://www.bellevue.edu/wp-content/uploads/PS-1035-Student-Academic-Misconduct.pdf; PS 1901 — Student Code of Conduct → https://web.archive.org/web/20260909112955/https://www.bellevue.edu/wp-content/uploads/PS-1901-Student-Code-of-Conduct.pdf; Faculty Toolkit — Turnitin (LibGuides) → https://web.archive.org/web/20260926045030/https://libguides.bellevue.edu/c.php?g=915202&p=6594232; Dean of Students → https://web.archive.org/web/20260926045149/https://www.bellevue.edu/student-experience/student-services/dean-of-students/.

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