New York City College of Technology.

What City Tech's and CUNY's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

Not addressed for an Academic Integrity Committee (AIC) hearing, the route for a contested charge that seeks only an academic sanction: City Tech's own FAQ describes who attends — "members of the AIC are present as well as the student," with the reporting faculty member "encouraged to attend but is not required to do so" — without naming an adviser, support person, or observer. Where the Academic Integrity Officer instead seeks a disciplinary sanction, the matter proceeds under CUNY Bylaws Article XV §15.3, and that article's advisor/counsel and recording provisions apply. Source: Academic Integrity Policy, City Tech, 2025–2026, pp. 5, 8, 18 (retrieved Sep 18, 2026)

What follows on the record

City Tech's own FAQ states plainly: "No indication of a single, first AI violation appears on a student's permanent record or transcripts. Only if the college takes formal disciplinary action against a student (in the case of egregious multiple violations, for example) might there be a notation on the student's official record or transcripts." Short of that, an uncontested or AIC-upheld violation is kept as "a confidential file" by the Academic Integrity Officer. Source: Academic Integrity Policy, City Tech, 2025–2026, pp. 8, 17 (retrieved Sep 18, 2026)

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

Academic integrity at City Tech runs on procedures written into the College's own bylaws (revised by College Council on April 13, 2010 to conform to the CUNY Bylaws) alongside the CUNY-systemwide Academic Integrity Policy (rev. Jun 27, 2024). An instructor who suspects a violation files a Faculty Action Report (FAR) with the Academic Integrity Officer, Johann Thiel:

If the student appeals, "he/she shall then convene a hearing by the Academic Integrity Committee (AIC) to be scheduled within forty five days of receipt of the student's appeal," and the student's grade is changed to "PEN" pending that hearing. "[B]y majority vote, members of the AIC will either uphold or overturn the violation and, by extension, any sanction the professor has attached to it. After the AIC has issued a ruling, the matter is final within the College." Where the Academic Integrity Officer instead seeks a disciplinary sanction — typically for repeated or egregious violations — the case is forwarded to "the office of the Vice President of Enrollment and Student affairs" for a preliminary investigation "as per Article XV, Section 15.3" of the CUNY Bylaws, and only the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee can determine whether formal disciplinary action follows. Source: Academic Integrity Policy, City Tech, 2025–2026, pp. 5, 7–8 (retrieved Sep 18, 2026). What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-18 — Page created, cold build (no prior CANDIDATES.md/QUEUE.md research to reuse beyond the CUNY-systemwide Hostos Turnitin-licensing fact already recorded on hunter.html, baruch.html and cunyqueens.html, independently re-verified here). Slug "citytech" used — the institution's own domain and common name, no collision found. 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 (the AI Task Force site, the Academic Integrity Policy manual and its FAQ appendix) found Turnitin and SafeAssign confirmed for plagiarism-matching and no institutional AI-text detector confirmed by name; GPTZero appears once, as the FAQ's own hypothetical example of a tool an instructor might personally try, explicitly described as unvetted, and is recorded as such rather than as a City Tech deployment. NOT DISQUALIFIED: no detector was ever documented as in use for AI-writing detection specifically (same reasoning as hunter.html and cunyqueens.html), so the AI Task Force's "Do not trust AI detection software" and the FAQ's caution against relying on detector "proof" are recorded as institutional caution rather than a disabling of anything in use. Process captured in full from City Tech's own Academic Integrity Policy manual (2025–2026; a 19-page College Council document last revised per its own bylaws citation of April 13, 2010, current edition dated by academic year in its title and cover), which is considerably more detailed than a typical CUNY college's catalog entry — FAR/AIC timelines, PEN-grade mechanics, and a dedicated FAQ section were all captured from it. Accompany row: the FAQ's own description of who attends an AIC hearing names only AIC members, the student, and optionally the reporting faculty member and witnesses — no adviser or support person is mentioned for this route, and that absence is stated rather than filled in from the separate disciplinary-track Article XV rights, which apply only once a case is referred to the Vice President for Enrollment and Student Affairs and the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee. Record row is unusually explicit for this collection: the FAQ states in its own words that a first violation leaves no transcript or permanent-record notation, reserving that for formal disciplinary action on repeat or egregious violations — quoted directly rather than inferred. Ombuds/advocacy sweep: no ombudsperson office was found on citytech.cuny.edu itself; City Tech's own Student Complaints page names CUNY's central Office of Student Conduct, Advocacy & Referral (COSAR) as where students go once the college's own procedures are exhausted, and COSAR's own page states it "functions in an ombudsman role to resolve student complaints" in addition to acting as "a source of information" and "a student advocate" — quoted verbatim rather than characterized further, since COSAR's own page does not itself specify which student populations or CUNY campuses it covers beyond that general description. This is a CUNY-system-level office, not a City-Tech-specific one, parallel in kind to the Hostos Turnitin fact, but is presented in the docket because City Tech's own page designates it as the college's referral path. Deliberately omitted: three FAQ entries on course-withdrawal timing, cell-phone-during-exam violations, and public posting of course materials to Chegg/Course Hero, none bearing on detection status or the two procedure-docket questions. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-18).

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