College of Charleston.
- Detection status
- Turnitin confirmed for plagiarism/similarity checking in OAKS; no AI-writing-specific Turnitin feature or any other AI-text detector is named anywhere on charleston.edu across a named-vendor and category sweep — the Honor Code itself prohibits unauthorized use of generative AI tools, which is a conduct rule, not a detection tool
- Office in these sources
- Office of the Dean of Students · 329 King Street, Charleston, SC 29401 · 843-953-5522 · deanofstudents@charleston.edu
- Ombuds or advocacy office
- Office of the Institutional Ombudsperson · 843-953-2235 · ombuds@cofc.edu — the College's own Student Handbook names this office and gives it this contact in one confirmed context (guidance on whether behavior meets the definition of bullying); the handbook's own link to a dedicated page describing the office's scope and independence is a dead link (404) in this review, so no institution-published description of its confidentiality, independence, or relationship to Honor Code cases specifically could be confirmed · charleston.edu — Bullying and Incivility
- Sources last checked
- Sep 26, 2026
Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.
College of Charleston's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case — course syllabi may also set course-level rules, and the Honor Code itself says an instructor may prohibit specific behavior "in the course syllabus or class discussion." Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.
No AI-text detector confirmed — the Honor Code addresses AI use, not AI detection
A named-vendor sweep (Turnitin, Turnitin AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep (the Teaching and Learning Technologies blog, the Office of Academic Affairs' Academic Integrity and AI page, and the Honor Code itself) found Turnitin confirmed for plagiarism/similarity checking in OAKS, the college's learning management system, and no AI-text detector named as deployed.
The Teaching and Learning Technologies blog (post dated Mar 29, 2018, "Last Revised" Jan 31, 2023; retrieved Sep 26, 2026) states Turnitin "checks written assignments for plagiarism from public online sources as well as its own database of student work," with no AI-writing-specific capability named. Source: Turnitin — Check Assignments for Plagiarism in OAKS.
The Office of Academic Affairs' Academic Integrity and AI page (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 26, 2026) is pedagogical guidance about using generative AI responsibly and names no detection tool: it directs instructors to "[e]ncourage intentional use of AI that supports, rather than replaces, the learning process." Source: Academic Integrity — Office of Academic Affairs.
The Honor Code itself (Official Policy 12.4.1, dated 08/24/21; retrieved Sep 26, 2026) defines Cheating to include "unauthorized use or possession of study aids, memoranda, books, data, or other information, including the use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools when not authorized by the instructor(s." — the policy's own text, reproduced as it reads — and defines Plagiarism to include "(d) Allowing any other person or organization (including Generative AI) to prepare work which one then submits as their own, unless explicitly authorized by the instructor(s)." These are rules about a student's own use of AI, not statements that the College runs an AI-detection tool on submitted work. Your syllabus and assignment instructions are therefore among the relevant sources for your own situation.
What the Honor Code and Honor System procedures say about how cases proceed
- Who may be present
- A respondent has "[t]he right to full consultation" and "may seek advice concerning the case from whomever they wish, including attorneys and honor advisors," and "[t]he right to choose their honor advisor." Hearings are recorded, and a party has "[t]he right to review the recording of the hearing in the Office of the Dean of Students if there is an appeal. The recording shall be the property of the College." — Honor Code and Honor Code Procedures, §5.1.2–5.1.3, 5.1.13 (Official Policy 12.4.1, dated 08/24/21; retrieved Sep 26, 2026) · Policy 12.4.1
- What follows on the record
- A student found responsible for "serious" academic dishonesty receives an "XXF" transcript notation, which "remains on the student's official transcript for a minimum of 2 years," after which "the student can petition the Honor Board for removal of the XX. The F grade will remain on the transcript." Disciplinary records generally are "maintained for seven (7) years... after all appeal rights have expired," while files on "not in violation" findings and their hearing recordings "will be destroyed after all appeal rights have expired." — Honor Code and Honor Code Procedures, §2.0(a), §10.6–10.9 (retrieved Sep 26, 2026) · Policy 12.4.1
The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.
The Honor Code and Honor Code Procedures (Official Policy 12.4.1, dated 08/24/21; retrieved Sep 26, 2026) sets out the respondent's rights in full, including the evidentiary standard:
Source: Policy 12.4.1 — Honor Code and Honor Code Procedures. A decision or sanction "may be appealed by the respondent and/or complainant to the Executive Vice President for Student Affairs within five (5) working days of the transmittal of the decision," on grounds limited to a procedural deviation that "could have otherwise affected the outcome," newly discovered evidence, disproportionate sanction, or insufficiency of the evidence; "an appeal shall be limited to review of the verbatim record of the initial hearing and supporting documents." What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; these are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.
Where the documents live
| Document | Location |
|---|---|
| Honor Code and Honor Code Procedures (Policy 12.4.1) | charleston.edu — Policy 12.4.1 (dated 08/24/21; retrieved Sep 26, 2026) |
| Turnitin — Check Assignments for Plagiarism in OAKS | blogs.charleston.edu/tlt (posted Mar 29, 2018, Last Revised Jan 31, 2023; retrieved Sep 26, 2026) |
| Academic Integrity (AI guidance) | charleston.edu/academic-affairs (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 26, 2026) |
| The Honor System (overview) | deanofstudents.cofc.edu — Honor System (retrieved Sep 26, 2026) |
| Office of the Dean of Students (contact) | charleston.edu/dean-of-students — Contact Us (retrieved Sep 26, 2026) |
| Bullying and Incivility (Ombudsperson contact) | charleston.edu/student-handbook (retrieved Sep 26, 2026) |
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
2026-09-26 — Page created by a scheduled, unattended build pass. All quotations retrieved this date from the charleston.edu, blogs.charleston.edu and deanofstudents.cofc.edu pages linked beside them; Policy 12.4.1 displays "08/24/21" as its printed date, the TLT blog post displays "March 29, 2018" with "Last Revised" Jan 31, 2023, and the Academic Affairs AI-guidance page displays no on-page date. Detection-inventory sweep performed: named-vendor sweep (Turnitin, Turnitin AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and category sweep (the TLT teaching-technology blog, the Academic Affairs AI-guidance page, and the Honor Code) of charleston.edu and its subdomains. NOT DISQUALIFIED — no page located states that AI detection has been disabled or is recommended against; the sweep is empty of any AI-text detector claim at all (deployed or discontinued), and Turnitin is confirmed only as a plagiarism/similarity tool. SUBSTANTIVE FINDING: the Honor Code's own generative-AI language (quoted in full in Section 01) is a conduct rule aimed at student use of AI, not evidence that the College deploys an AI-detection tool — the two are kept distinct on this page rather than conflated, since a page naming AI only in that context could otherwise read as implying detection capability that no source states. PROCESS: the evidentiary standard, advisor/counsel right, recording-review right, appeal window and grounds, transcript notation, and record-retention rules are all from the Honor Code and Honor Code Procedures itself (Policy 12.4.1), captured directly from the policy PDF via pdftotext rather than the HTML policy-library page, which serves the same PDF. OMBUDS: the Office of the Institutional Ombudsperson is named, with a working phone and email, on the Student Handbook's Bullying and Incivility page ("The Office of the Institutional Ombudsperson can provide guidance for determining whether behavior meets the definition of bullying"); that page's own link to a dedicated Ombudsperson-office page (student-handbook/handbook/ombudsperson-office.php) returns a live 404 on charleston.edu, confirmed in a browser, so this page cannot independently confirm from a first-party description whether the office is confidential, independent, or available for Honor Code matters specifically — recorded as a scope gap and a stale internal link rather than assumed either way. A search-engine-indexed 2014 and 2018 third-party ombuds-community blog post naming a specific officeholder was located but is NOT used, since it is not a charleston.edu source and could be stale. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Subreddit demand scan not run (outside this run's research method). Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-27).
2026-10-06 — Internet Archive captures requested on 2026-09-27 by an automated capture pass 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: Academic Integrity — Office of Academic Affairs → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042009/https://charleston.edu/academic-affairs/academic-integrity-ai.php; charleston.edu/dean-of-students — Contact Us → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042041/https://charleston.edu/dean-of-students/contact-us.php; Policy 12.4.1 → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042111/https://charleston.edu/policy/documents/12.4.1.pdf; charleston.edu — Bullying and Incivility → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042134/https://charleston.edu/student-handbook/handbook/bullying-incivility.php; deanofstudents.cofc.edu — Honor System → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042207/https://deanofstudents.cofc.edu/honor-system/index.php.
Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.