The City College of New York.
- Detection status
- Turnitin confirmed deployed at CCNY, funded as "Plagiarism detection software" in the FY2026 Student Technology Fee budget; CUNY's own systemwide guidance states the CUNY-licensed version of Turnitin "does not have AI detection tools that detect AI-generated content" — no AI-text detector is named anywhere on ccny.cuny.edu or in CUNY's own systemwide documentation
- Office in these sources
- Academic Integrity Officer (Mr. Gareth Williams) · Wille Administration Building, Room A218A · academicintegrity@ccny.cuny.edu · no phone number published on the office's own page
- Ombuds or advocacy office
- None located on the institution's own pages in this review. CCNY publishes an "Ombudsman" page under Faculty Senate governance (responsibilities: "equity, critical review, and recommendation and report"), staffed by a faculty member; the page does not state that it serves students, and its placement inside the Faculty Senate's own governance plan is not presented on this page as a general student resource.
- Sources last checked
- Sep 22, 2026
Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.
The City College of New York's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. CCNY is one of CUNY's senior colleges, and its academic-integrity process runs on a CUNY-systemwide policy that CCNY implements with its own procedures — both levels are quoted here. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case — course syllabi and instructor-facing guidance may also apply. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.
What CCNY's and CUNY's own pages say about detection tools
A named-vendor sweep (Turnitin, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep (CCNY's Academic Integrity page, its Brightspace IT page, its FY2026 Student Technology Fee Plan, and the CUNY Academic Integrity Policy) found Turnitin confirmed as a currently funded plagiarism/similarity tool and no AI-text detector confirmed by name anywhere. CCNY's FY2026 Student Technology Fee Plan (retrieved Sep 22, 2026) budgets it in a line-item table:
Source: CCNY Student Technology Fee Plan, FY 2026 (PDF). CCNY's own IT page confirms the university-wide Brightspace migration Turnitin now runs through: "Beginning Spring 2025, The City University of New York (CUNY) is transitioning from our current Learning Management System (LMS), Blackboard, to Brightspace." Source: Brightspace — The City College of New York (retrieved Sep 22, 2026). Neither page says which of Turnitin's features — similarity checking, AI-writing detection, or both — are active in CCNY's license.
That question is answered at the CUNY system level. A CUNY Brightspace faculty guide published by Hostos Community College's Educational Technology unit, describing the same CUNY-licensed Turnitin integration used across the University, states after describing Turnitin's similarity-report function:
Source: Assignments & Plagiarism Detection in Brightspace — Hostos Community College (retrieved Sep 22, 2026). This is a CUNY-wide licensing fact, not a CCNY-specific one, and this page treats it as applying to CCNY's own Turnitin integration on that basis, consistent with how it has been used on other CUNY college pages in this collection — CCNY's own pages do not separately confirm or dispute it. CUNY's own faculty-development resource, the Teach@CUNY AI Toolkit, goes further and recommends against relying on AI-detection software generally:
Source: Course Policies — Teach@CUNY AI Toolkit (retrieved Sep 22, 2026), a resource of the CUNY Graduate Center's Teach@CUNY initiative. No CCNY or CUNY page located in this review states that any AI-text detector — Turnitin's or another vendor's — is enabled, disabled, or otherwise in use for identifying AI-generated student writing; the CUNY Academic Integrity Policy itself (rev. Jun 27, 2024) requires only that "[e]ach college shall subscribe to an electronic plagiarism detection service" (§2.3), with no mention of AI-writing detection anywhere in its text. That gap, at the scope of the sweeps described above, is the finding.
What CCNY's and CUNY's own pages say about how cases proceed
- Who may be present
- Not addressed for the initial informal conversation between instructor and student. Where a case reaches a Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee hearing under CUNY Bylaws Article XV — used for disciplinary-sanction cases — the respondent has the right "to be assisted or represented by an advisor or legal counsel at their expense," and if requested the college will help find counsel. Recording is addressed for that same hearing: "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(f)(2)(v) and §15.4(p)(5) (retrieved Sep 22, 2026) · Article XV — CUNY Policy
- What follows on the record
- For an admitted, academic-sanction-only case, the Academic Integrity Officer keeps "a confidential academic integrity file created for each student alleged to have violated the Academic Integrity Policy," retained "for the purposes of identifying repeat offenders" — no transcript notation is described for this path, and the file is destroyed if the student is later found not to have violated the policy. Where a case instead proceeds to a Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee under Article XV, "the college must place a notation of the findings and penalty on a respondent's transcript," removable "as a matter of right, upon the request of the respondent… four years after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding or one year after the conclusion of any suspension," whichever is longer. Not stated in the sources reviewed: disclosure to a graduate program, employer, or licensing board. — CUNY Academic Integrity Policy §3.3, §4.4, and CUNY Bylaws Article XV §15.4(p)(17)–(18)
The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.
CCNY's own Academic Integrity page (Last Updated 06/08/2026; retrieved Sep 22, 2026) describes the process this way:
Source: Academic Integrity — The City College of New York. This matches the CUNY-wide policy structure: the CUNY Academic Integrity Policy (rev. Jun 27, 2024; retrieved Sep 22, 2026) defines four categories of academic dishonesty — Cheating, Plagiarism, Obtaining Unfair Advantage, and Falsification of Records and Official Documents — and states that generative-AI misuse falls within cheating and plagiarism: "Using artificial intelligence tools to generate content for assignments or exams, including but not limited to language models or code generators, without written authorization from the instructor" is an example of cheating, and "[u]nauthorized use of AI-generated content; or use of AI-generated content, whether in whole or in part, even when paraphrased, without citing the AI as the source" is an example of plagiarism. Where a student denies the allegation, "a fact-finding determination shall be made, at each college's option, by an Academic Integrity Committee established by the College's governance body or by the Student-Faculty Disciplinary Committee established under Article XV of the CUNY Bylaws" (§4.2.3) — matching CCNY's own two-track description above. Where disciplinary sanctions are sought, the Article XV committee "bears the burden of proving the charge(s) by a preponderance of the evidence" (§15.4(p)(6)), and an appeal from its decision "shall be made in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days after the delivery of the decision appealed from" (§15.4(p)(15)). Source: CUNY Academic Integrity Policy; CUNY Bylaws, Article XV. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.
Where the documents live
| Document | Location |
|---|---|
| Academic Integrity — The City College of New York (Last Updated 06/08/2026) | ccny.cuny.edu/academicaffairs/academic-integrityacademic-standards |
| Brightspace — The City College of New York (LMS/Turnitin transition) | ccny.cuny.edu/it/brightspace |
| CCNY Student Technology Fee Plan, FY 2026 (Turnitin budget line, PDF) | broadcast.ccny.cuny.edu — FY 2026 Tech Fee Plan (PDF) |
| Assignments & Plagiarism Detection in Brightspace (CUNY-wide Turnitin licensing fact) | commons.hostos.cuny.edu — Assignments & Plagiarism Detection |
| Course Policies — Teach@CUNY AI Toolkit (recommendation against AI-detection software) | aitoolkit.commons.gc.cuny.edu/course-policies/ |
| CUNY Academic Integrity Policy (definitions, reporting, sanctions, committee referral) | cuny.edu — Academic Integrity Policy (rev. Jun 27, 2024) |
| CUNY Bylaws, Article XV (advisor/counsel right, recording, evidentiary standard, transcript notation, appeal window) | policy.cuny.edu — Article XV |
| Ombudsman (CCNY Faculty Senate) | ccny.cuny.edu/facultysenate/ombudsman (Last Updated 03/01/2024) |
Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.
Revision history of this page
2026-09-22 — Page created by an automated build pass; no human review is claimed for this entry. First-party material captured this date from ccny.cuny.edu (Academic Integrity, Last Updated 06/08/2026; Brightspace; Ombudsman, Last Updated 03/01/2024), broadcast.ccny.cuny.edu (FY 2026 Student Technology Fee Plan, PDF), cuny.edu (Academic Integrity Policy, PDF metadata confirms creation date Jun 27, 2024, author Jose Pagan — though the document's own visible "History" line still reads "Amended and replaced on June 27, 2022," a discrepancy reproduced rather than resolved), policy.cuny.edu (Bylaws Article XV, fetched and read in full), commons.hostos.cuny.edu (a sister CUNY college's Brightspace Turnitin faculty guide, used only for its CUNY-systemwide licensing statement, as already established on this collection's Hunter College and Baruch College pages), and aitoolkit.commons.gc.cuny.edu (Teach@CUNY AI Toolkit). NOT THE FIRST CUNY BUILD: Hunter College (built Sep 11, 2026) and Baruch College (built Sep 15, 2026) already resolved this collection's open question about a CUNY systemwide detection position, using the same Hostos licensing statement; this page reuses that established research rather than re-deriving it, and independently confirmed it still holds via the Teach@CUNY AI Toolkit's separate recommendation against AI-detection software. NOT DISQUALIFIED, consistent with Hunter and Baruch: no detector was ever documented as in use for AI-writing detection specifically at CCNY or CUNY-wide, so neither disqualification branch (no documented detector remains in use where one previously was; every detector found is disabled or recommended against) is met in the sense that would trigger exclusion — Turnitin's plagiarism/similarity function remains actively funded and documented, distinguishing this from University of Massachusetts Boston, excluded earlier in this same pass on a documented deactivation of a previously active Turnitin AI-detection feature. OFFICE: CCNY's own Academic Integrity page publishes only an office location and email for Gareth Williams, Academic Integrity Officer (Wille Administration Building, Room A218A, academicintegrity@ccny.cuny.edu); no phone number appears on that page, and one surfaced only in an unrelated secondary search result, so none is used here. OMBUDS: CCNY's "Ombudsman" page sits under Faculty Senate governance ("Home / Faculty Senate / Ombudsman"), describes three areas of responsibility (equity, critical review, recommendation and report) drawn from the college's Governance Plan, names a faculty member as the officeholder, and does not state that it serves students — the same faculty-governance framing that excluded University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh's Faculty Senate Ombudsperson earlier in this pass, applied consistently here. 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 (CCNY's Academic Integrity, IT/Brightspace, and Tech Fee Plan pages) found Turnitin confirmed and funded for plagiarism/similarity checking only. Record row: Article XV's transcript-notation and four-year removal provisions are stated as applying once a case reaches the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee; for the more common admitted-violation, academic-sanction-only path, no transcript notation is described in the sources reviewed, and that is stated as such rather than assumed. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Internet Archive captures pending — to be requested by a later capture pass. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-22).
Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.