Capella University.

What Capella's own policy says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

Not stated as a right to a support person or advisor. For a review by the Independent Review Panel (IRP): "All involved parties will be given the opportunity to present their respective positions to the panel via remote meeting or call." Recording of that meeting or call is not addressed. For an appeal from a Provost's-designee decision specifically, the student "shall have the opportunity to present their position to the president's designee via remote meeting or call," while an appeal from an IRP decision carries no such meeting option at all: "Students appealing the decision of an independent review panel... shall not have an option to present their position to the panel via remote meeting or call." — University Policy 3.01.01, Academic Integrity and Honesty, §§V(D) and VII(C) (Revised Procedure Effective Date: July 8, 2025; retrieved Sep 4, 2026) · capella.edu — University Policy 3.01.01

What follows on the record

"A record of any sanction issued under this policy will become part of the student's official academic record." More broadly, of any final decision: "A record of any final decision and all related materials will become part of the student's official academic record and, upon request or where otherwise deemed appropriate and allowable in the university's discretion, will be made available to Capella boards and appropriate regulatory bodies." Separately, where leadership deems a violation egregious, the policy authorizes "the university withholding transcripts while the investigation or any appeal process is pending." No specific retention period is stated. — University Policy 3.01.01, §§III(C), VIII(C) and IX (retrieved Sep 4, 2026) · capella.edu — University Policy 3.01.01

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

The policy escalates through named stages rather than a single hearing, beginning with the instructor and rising to an Independent Review Panel on appeal or at the university's discretion (Revised Policy Approval Date: March 3, 2023; Revised Procedure Approval Date: June 30, 2025; retrieved Sep 4, 2026):

Source: University Policy 3.01.01 — capella.edu, §§IV(A) and IV(C). No evidentiary standard — such as a preponderance-of-the-evidence rule — is named anywhere in the policy's text; that absence is stated rather than assumed. A further appeal from an Independent Review Panel or Provost's-designee decision goes to the president's designee within the same ten-calendar-day window, whose decision is final "with the exception of a sanction for revocation of a previously conferred credential, which decision shall be final upon Board of Trustees determination" (§VII).

Sanctions range widely and are stated as neither progressive nor exhaustive: "Non-acceptance of work submitted," "Failing a course," "Suspension from the university," "Dismissal from the university," and "Cancellation of previously awarded academic credit or a degree or certificate credential," the last requiring Board of Trustees action. Advanced doctoral students are routed to a different policy entirely: "All allegations of academic dishonesty involving students in the advanced doctoral phase will be processed according to the provisions in university policy 3.03.06 Research Misconduct," which this page does not reproduce. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine, source: University Policy 3.01.01 — capella.edu.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-04 — Page created. All quotations captured this date, first-party, from the capella.edu and capella.libanswers.com pages linked beside them; every source quoted here was fetched and read as text rather than summarized (the University Policy 3.01.01 PDF was read directly as a document). Source dates as the sources give them: Policy 3.01.01 carries a Revised Policy Effective Date of April 1, 2023 and a Revised Procedure Effective Date of July 8, 2025; the dissertation-Turnitin and avoiding-plagiarism FAQs are marked Last Updated Feb. 14 and Feb. 16, 2018 respectively; the Turnitin advising FAQ is marked Last Updated May 19, 2017; the Pangram FAQ is marked Last Updated Jan. 23, 2026; the gen-AI student-policy FAQ is marked Last Updated Nov. 10, 2025; the Title IX page displays no on-page date. Detection sweep recorded for a later reviewer. Named-vendor sweep — Turnitin (including SimCheck and Originality), Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity: Turnitin found and confirmed campus-wide and on dissertations under a contract with iParadigms; Pangram, not on the standard vendor list, found and confirmed as a named AI-detection tool the Library offers students as a self-check resource; Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus and Examity: nothing located as a Capella deployment. Category sweep — the Library's LibAnswers FAQ set across Writing Center, Advising, Doctoral Support and Library topics; University Policy 3.01.01 and its related-documents list; the Title IX and general Contact Us pages; no separate IT service catalogue or Canvas external-tool list distinct from the LibAnswers FAQs was located. Provenance and scope discipline: Pangram is described by Capella's own page as a tool a student runs voluntarily on their own draft ("use it early and often"), not as a tool stated to screen every graded submission automatically, and is reported at that scope rather than folded into an undifferentiated detector count; similarly, Turnitin's AI-writing indicator specifically (as opposed to text-similarity checking, which is confirmed) is not confirmed enabled or disabled by any source found. Access limit recorded rather than assumed: the "Capella AI Skills Portal," named as carrying the university's generative-AI guidance, sits inside Capella's learner platform and could not be fetched; nothing from its contents is stated on this page. Disqualification check run on the completed inventory: Capella has not disabled or recommended against AI detection across the board — Turnitin is confirmed required campus-wide and Pangram is confirmed offered by name, so this is a confirmed-detector page, not a disqualification. Nothing paraphrase-pending — every quotation on this page was captured as text. Absences recorded as findings: University Policy 3.01.01 names no generative-AI clause and no detection tool anywhere in its own text; no evidentiary standard (such as preponderance of the evidence) is named anywhere in the policy; no source addresses whether a support person or advisor may accompany a student, or whether any review meeting is recorded; no specific record-retention period is stated, and disclosure is stated only as to "Capella boards and appropriate regulatory bodies," not itemized further; no ombuds or student-advocacy office was located anywhere on capella.edu or capella.libanswers.com. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-04). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

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.