Central Michigan University.

Detection status: No AI-writing detector, or any specific plagiarism-detection tool naming AI, is named on CMU's own AI, teaching-center, or library pages across a named-vendor and category sweep; Blackboard's SafeAssign is confirmed only as an instructor-optional similarity/plagiarism checker
Office in these sources: Office of Student Conduct · Smith Hall 109/110 · 989-774-1345 · StudentConduct@cmich.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: University Ombuds Office — self-described as "a designated neutral for students, staff, faculty, and other university affiliates" offering "confidential*, informal, impartial, and independent assistance" (asterisk is the office's own footnote marker, not reproduced here). Its own page currently states: "the ombuds office email and voicemail will not be monitored," and "a liaison is not an ombuds and will not function as such, for example, privacy will be respected but confidentiality cannot be guaranteed in the interim" · cmich.edu — University Ombuds Office
Sources last checked: Sep 29, 2026

Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.

CMU'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 and department rules may also apply. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

No AI-writing detector is documented as deployed at CMU

Named-vendor sweep of cmich.edu, cmich.smartcatalogiq.com, and CMU's teaching-center and library pages (Turnitin, Turnitin AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) found none named as a deployed AI-writing detector. CMU's Blackboard learning-management system runs SafeAssign, and CMU Libraries describe it as a plagiarism-similarity tool, not an AI-content detector (page dated Apr 1, 2022; retrieved Sep 29, 2026):

"a tool that runs within Blackboard"

Source: How do I use SafeAssign — CMU Library FAQ. Whether SafeAssign is turned on for a given course "depends entirely on the instructor," per the same page; the FAQ names no AI-generated-content capability anywhere.

Category sweep of the Office of Curriculum and Instructional Support's AI resources, its assignment-design guidance, and the President's Office AI-policy page found the same result: no page names a deployed detection tool, but the assignment-design page cautions against relying on any AI-detection score at all (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 29, 2026):

"AI detection tools may produce false positives and false negatives. Their results can be affected by writing style, language background, revision, and the type of content being analyzed." "Detection results should not be treated as proof. At most, they may serve as one piece of information that prompts further review and conversation." "Faculty should avoid submitting student work to third-party detection tools when doing so could create privacy, copyright, or data security concerns."

Source: Assignment Design, Academic Integrity and Student AI Use — Curriculum and Instructional Support. This is advisory caution attached to an inventory that names no detector, not a statement that a CMU-licensed detector was disabled or is recommended against; CMU's own AI-resources page and its "AI at CMU" policy-and-guidance page (President's Office; retrieved Sep 29, 2026) likewise name no detection tool in either direction.

02Published process

What CMU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: "The student(s) may bring an advisor of the student's choice to the discussion with the Conduct Proceedings Officer. […] The advisor's role is limited to providing advice to the student(s). The advisor is not permitted to ask or answer questions or make oral arguments." An official recording of the hearing is kept by the university; "[u]nauthorized recording by participants is prohibited." — Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Disciplinary Procedures, Office of Student Conduct (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 29, 2026). This is the general conduct process that applies once a matter is referred to the Office of Student Conduct; a first-level academic-dishonesty case decided by the instructor under the Policy on Academic Integrity is a direct notify-and-respond exchange with the instructor, and that policy states no accompaniment or recording provision of its own.
What follows on the record: "This sanction will be recorded on the student's permanent disciplinary record, subject to release only under the terms of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act." — Policy on Academic Integrity, 2026-2027 Undergraduate Bulletin. No transcript-specific notation is named; the policy speaks to the disciplinary record and its FERPA-governed release, not to what prints on a transcript itself.

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

From CMU's Policy on Academic Integrity (2026-2027 Undergraduate Bulletin; policy passed May 5, 2009, revised Mar 26, 2013, Apr 21, 2020, and Apr 5, 2022; retrieved Sep 29, 2026):

"the instructor will attempt to contact the student within a reasonable period of time (normally ten (10) university business days) to notify the student of the suspected violation" "An offer to discuss the matter further and to respond to the allegations." "Academic consequences may include a warning or reprimand, a requirement to resubmit work (with or without an additional reduction in grade for the assignment), a lowering of the grade for the assignment (including withholding of any credit for the assignment), or a lowering of the grade for the entire course (including failing the course)." "The burden of proof shall be upon the student to show that there was insufficient basis for a reasonable instructor to find that academic misconduct occurred, and/or that the instructor's selection of academic consequences for the misconduct was arbitrary, capricious, or grossly unjust."

Source: Policy on Academic Integrity — CMU Bulletins. That standard governs a student's appeal of the instructor's own finding; the policy states no separate evidentiary standard for the instructor's initial determination. A case may also be referred to the Office of Student Conduct for further discipline under the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Disciplinary Procedures (Charged Violation of Student), which states its own standard explicitly: "The University uses the preponderance of the evidence standard to determine violations of University regulations. A student will be found in violation when evidence supports that it is more likely than not that the student violated the University regulation." That page also states an appeal to the Appeals Board is timely "only if made within five (5) business days of the decision appealed." What these quotations mean for any particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; they are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
How do I use SafeAssign (Blackboard tool description)	libanswers.cmich.edu — SafeAssign FAQ (Apr 1, 2022)
Generative AI Resources	cmich.edu — Generative AI Resources
Assignment Design, Academic Integrity and Student AI Use (detection caution)	cmich.edu — Assignment Design, Academic Integrity and Student AI Use
AI at CMU — Policy and Guidance	cmich.edu — AI at CMU: Policy and Guidance
Policy on Academic Integrity (process, sanctions, evidentiary standard, record/FERPA)	cmich.smartcatalogiq.com — Policy on Academic Integrity
Charged Violation of Student (general conduct process, accompaniment, recording, preponderance standard, appeal window)	cmich.edu — Charged Violation of Student
About the Office of Student Conduct (office contact)	cmich.edu — About the Office of Student Conduct
University Ombuds Office	cmich.edu — University Ombuds Office

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.

04Change log

Revision history of this page

2026-09-29 — Page created. Automated scheduled pass; no human review is claimed. 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) run against cmich.edu, cmich.smartcatalogiq.com, and libanswers.cmich.edu; category sweep of the AI resources hub, the assignment-design/detection-caution page, the "AI at CMU" policy-and-guidance page, and the CMU Library's SafeAssign FAQ. No AI-writing detector is documented as deployed; SafeAssign is confirmed as an instructor-optional plagiarism/similarity tool with no stated AI-detection capability. First-party material captured: the SafeAssign FAQ, the AI resources and assignment-design pages, the Policy on Academic Integrity (2026-2027 Undergraduate Bulletin), the Charged Violation of Student page from the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Disciplinary Procedures, the Office of Student Conduct's About page, and the University Ombuds Office page. TOOLING NOTE: one Office of Student Conduct knowledge-base article on SafeAssign, reached only through cmich.teamdynamix.com, redirects to Central Michigan's single sign-on and could not be read unattended; nothing is quoted from it, and the SafeAssign description above rests on the Library's own public FAQ instead. Deliberately omitted: the graduate-only Academic Integrity Policy for Graduate Students (Board Policy 5-18-5-20), which is out of scope for this undergraduate-facing page. Recorded precisely rather than smoothed over: the University Ombuds Office's own page states the office is currently between practitioners, that "the ombuds office email and voicemail will not be monitored," and that "a liaison is not an ombuds and will not function as such" — quoted in the docket alongside the office's general self-description rather than presented as a fully operating confidential resource. The Policy on Academic Integrity states an evidentiary standard for a student's appeal of an instructor's finding, but no separate standard for the instructor's initial determination; both are recorded as found, not conflated. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-29).

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