Bowling Green State University.

What BGSU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"Both the student and the instructor have the right to be accompanied and assisted by advisors, but the advisors are not permitted to participate directly in any hearing nor may they appear in lieu of the student or instructor." A separate due-process provision adds: "In cases where expulsion or dismissal or suspension may be the sanction, the student may be accompanied by an external advisor." On recording, the Code addresses only the University's own record of a dean-level hearing: "A taped record shall be made of all hearings conducted by an academic dean." — Code of Academic Conduct, Office of the Dean of Students (page dated 07/21/2023; retrieved Sep 3, 2026) · Code of Academic Conduct

What follows on the record

"The Provost shall have the power to direct the registrar to print on the transcript the reason for a student's expulsion, dismissal, or suspension as due to a violation of the Academic Honesty Policy in cases of repeated or egregious violations." For a violation discovered after graduation, the same document states the notation is not discretionary in one case: "If the sanction is revocation of degree, the reason shall always be printed on the transcript." — same source, same retrieval

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

The Code of Academic Conduct splits jurisdiction by sanction severity. Below suspension, the course instructor decides; at suspension, dismissal, expulsion, or a second offense, the academic dean decides. Instructor-level cases proceed on a fixed clock (page dated 07/21/2023; retrieved Sep 3, 2026):

Where the academic dean has jurisdiction, a hearing follows instead of an instructor conference, with its own notice and evidence rights:

An evidentiary standard is named explicitly only for an appeal to the Academic Honesty Committee, and it falls on the student rather than the University: "In any appeal, the appellant shall have the burden of proof, and the standard of proof is 'more likely than not.'" The Code does not separately name a standard of proof for the instructor's or academic dean's initial determination — an absence, not an inference that the appellate standard also governs that earlier step. A right to remain silent is not named anywhere in this Code; the rights it states are to examine and challenge evidence and to present a defense, not to decline to respond. Appeal windows are short and layered: seven days from an instructor's or dean's sanction to appeal to the Academic Honesty Committee, then seven more days to appeal that committee's decision to the Provost, whose decision is final for a case discovered before graduation. Sanctions range from partial or no credit on an assignment up through course withdrawal ("WF"), suspension, dismissal, and expulsion, with graduate-student cases for non-course material such as a thesis or dissertation carrying a minimum sanction of suspension.

Disclosure of a finding to a graduate program, an employer, or a licensing board, beyond the transcript notation itself, was searched for in this Code and not found; it is recorded here as not stated in the sources reviewed, not asserted either way. Source: Code of Academic Conduct; see also the Dean of Students' overview page, Academic Honesty (page dated 02/13/2026; retrieved Sep 3, 2026), which restates the same instructor/dean process in flowchart form without adding new procedural terms. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-03 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date by direct fetch and, where a page's collapsible sections required it, by browser read of the rendered DOM (the ITS AI Resources page's Turnitin and Respondus panels) — both are first-party captures of bgsu.edu's own published text, not paraphrase-pending. Source page dates, where shown, are quoted beside each passage: the ITS AI Resources page carries "Updated: 09/09/2025"; the Code of Academic Conduct carries "Updated: 07/21/2023"; the Dean of Students' Academic Honesty overview carries "Updated: 02/13/2026"; the University Libraries' Artificial Intelligence Literacy guide carries "Last Updated: Jan 30, 2026"; the Graduate College's Thesis/Dissertation Handbook carries "Updated: 08/13/2026"; the Honors College's Student's Grade Appeal and Concerns page carries "Updated: 03/03/2026"; the Administrative Staff Council's Ombuds page carries "Updated: 04/22/2024." Detection sweep recorded here: a named-vendor sweep across bgsu.edu (Turnitin's SimCheck/Originality branding specifically, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Examity) plus a category sweep (ITS's AI Resources page, the Center for Faculty Excellence's Just In Time Resources landing page, the University Libraries' Artificial Intelligence Literacy guide, the Graduate College's Thesis/Dissertation Handbook, the Dean of Students' Academic Honesty and Code of Academic Conduct pages, BGSU's general Code of Student Conduct, and the Honors College's pages). Findings: Turnitin's AI Writing Indicator confirmed available via Canvas per ITS's own page; Respondus LockDown Browser confirmed deployed as exam-session access control that blocks AI tools rather than scanning submitted text, and is described accordingly rather than folded into the detector inventory; no other named AI-text detector was found anywhere in either sweep. NOT a step-2 disqualification: BGSU's University Libraries guide is critical of AI-detector reliability in general and links outside reporting on another university (Vanderbilt) disabling Turnitin's detector, but no BGSU page states that BGSU itself has disabled or recommends against its own Turnitin AI Writing Indicator — the ITS page continues to list it as available — so the disqualification standard (publicly disabled or recommended against, across the board, by the institution itself) is not met. DOCUMENT-NAME NOTE: the governing document's own page is titled "Code of Academic Conduct" but repeatedly calls itself the "Academic Honesty Policy" within its own text; both names are used on this page rather than silently picking one. POLICY-HIERARCHY NOTE: this Code states of itself, "This policy governs all matters of academic dishonesty, and alternative policies or procedures not provided for herein shall not be used" — distinguishing it from BGSU's separate, general Code of Student Conduct (3341-2-28), which was located and read but is not quoted here because it governs non-academic misconduct, not academic dishonesty. OMBUDS ROW: a search for "ombuds," "ombudsperson," and "student advocacy" across bgsu.edu found exactly one office using the title "ombudsperson": the Honors College's, which its own page describes as "an independent, confidential, and impartial resource for students enrolled in the Honors College" for grade-related grievances specifically, appointed by and reporting within the Honors College Dean's office — not academic-integrity-scoped and not available to students outside that college. A second office, the Administrative Staff Council's Ombuds program, was located and excluded on inspection: its own page states it serves "BGSU administrative staff" on "workplace issues," not students. Undergraduate Student Government names "Student Advocacy" among its shared values, but its own page describes this as representing the undergraduate student body's collective concerns to the administration, not individual case assistance, and it was not treated as an advocacy office on that basis. No general-purpose, university-wide student ombuds or advocacy office was located. RIGHT TO SILENCE: not named anywhere reviewed; the Code's stated student rights are to examine and challenge evidence and to present a defense, not to decline to respond. EVIDENTIARY STANDARD: "more likely than not" is stated explicitly only for the appellant's burden on appeal to the Academic Honesty Committee; the Code does not separately name a standard of proof for the instructor's or academic dean's initial determination, recorded here as an absence rather than assumed to carry over from the appellate stage. DISCLOSURE: disclosure of a finding to a graduate program, employer, or licensing board beyond the transcript notation was searched for in the Code of Academic Conduct and not found, stated as not stated in the sources reviewed. Nothing on this page is paraphrase-pending. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-04).

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).

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