California State University, Bakersfield.

Detection status: No AI-text detector is named as deployed anywhere in CSUB's own Academic Integrity Policy; "Using Artificial Intelligence" to complete graded work without authorization is named as a violation category, with no detection mechanism stated
Office in these sources: Dean of Students Office · Numenor Building, 9001 Stockdale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93311 · 661-654-2680 · deanofstudents@csub.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: Ombudsperson (Dr. Maria Palaiologou) — CSUB's own page states the office "helps solve problems informally, confidentially and impartially" and is "available to meet with any student who has a concern or complaint about the University," listing "[d]isciplinary matters" among the issue types it addresses. Not described as handling academic-integrity cases specifically · csub.edu — Ombudsperson
Sources last checked: Oct 7, 2026

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

CSUB's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below, together with the CSU systemwide Student Conduct Process that CSUB's own Academic Integrity Policy names as governing its disciplinary sanctions. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case — course syllabi may also apply. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

What CSUB's own pages document

CSUB's Undergraduate Academic Integrity Policy lists unauthorized AI use among the conduct it covers, without naming a detection tool (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026):

"Using Artificial Intelligence to complete an assignment or exam developed to assess your knowledge of a particular subject matter, idea, or concept or using it without the explicit permission of the instructor for the purpose of gaining an unfair academic advantage would also be considered a violation."

Source: CSUB Undergraduate Academic Integrity Policy. The same document's separate "Improper use of technology" category covers "computers, computer programs, cell phones, calculators, or other software or electronic aids," again without naming any detection product. No CSUB page located in this review names Turnitin, a Turnitin AI-writing feature, or any other AI-text detector as licensed, enabled or used to identify the violation above; the policy's own procedure instead routes a suspected violation through an instructor's direct observation and the evidence the instructor brings to a meeting with the student.

Scope of the search behind the above: a named-vendor sweep of csub.edu (Turnitin and its 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 of the Dean of Students' academic-integrity pages, the Undergraduate and Graduate Academic Integrity Policies, and the CSU systemwide Student Conduct Process cross-referenced by both. No detector was located in any of them, and no CSUB page was found stating that AI-detection has been deliberately disabled or recommended against — the inventory is empty rather than a documented deactivation.

02Published procedure

What CSUB's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: "Both the Complainant and the Student charged may elect to be accompanied by an Advisor of their choice, subject to the limitations set forth in this section, to any meetings, conferences, interviews or hearings." The same section restricts the role: "An Advisor may not speak on a Student's or Complainant's behalf." — CSU Student Conduct Process (status shown as Active; no on-page revision date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026). On recording, the same policy states plainly for the instructor/administrator conference stage: "The conference shall not be recorded." At a formal hearing, the Hearing Officer "shall make an official audio recording of the hearing," and "[t]he recording is University Property. No other recording of the hearing is permitted."
What follows on the record: "A suspension of one academic year or more, expulsion, withdrawal in lieu of suspension or expulsion, or permanent withdrawal in lieu of suspension or expulsion shall be entered on the Student's transcript permanently, without exception; this requirement shall not be waived in connection with any resolution agreement." Lesser sanctions are treated differently in CSUB's own Academic Integrity Policy: "Disciplinary probation will be noted on the student's formal academic record only for the duration of the probationary period. Disciplinary suspension of more than an academic year and expulsion will be part of the student's permanent academic record." The same policy adds that the sanction outcome "will be provided to the instructor who reported the incident and remain in the student's electronic disciplinary file in accordance with the CSU Records/Information Retention and Disposition Schedule." — CSU Student Conduct Process and CSUB Undergraduate Academic Integrity Policy (retrieved Oct 7, 2026). Not stated in the sources reviewed: disclosure to a graduate school, an employer or a licensing board.

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

On how an instructor-level case moves to a decision, CSUB's own Undergraduate Academic Integrity Policy states (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026):

"When a faculty or staff member or administrator discovers a violation of the academic integrity policy, they shall invite the student to discuss the violation, including the evidence, with the student(s) involved and allow the student(s) to respond." "After the violation has occurred and penalty imposed, the incident, with all supporting evidence, shall be reported to the Dean of Students' Office through the Academic Integrity Violation Reporting Form and to the applicable academic program(s) to be considered in its totality in order to determine whether the reported incident is part of a larger pattern of misconduct. Disciplinary sanctions for academic dishonesty are processed through the procedures outlined in the Student Conduct Process."

Source: CSUB Undergraduate Academic Integrity Policy. Where a case proceeds to the systemwide Student Conduct Process it names, that policy sets the standard of proof directly: "The standard of proof the Hearing Officer shall use is whether the University's charge is sustained by a Preponderance of the Evidence. It is the University's burden to show that it is 'more likely than not' that the Student violated the Student Conduct Code." Source: CSU Student Conduct Process — PolicyStat (status shown as Active; no on-page revision date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026). A divergence worth stating plainly: the Student Conduct Process's own Article III, which governs cases not involving the CSU's Nondiscrimination Policy (the academic-integrity track), ends with "The president, or designee, shall review the Hearing Officer's report and issue a final decision" and states no further appeal step after it — a separate appeal to the Chancellor's Office appears only in Article IV, the Nondiscrimination-Policy track. CSUB's own student-conduct-procedures page nonetheless states that "the Student has the right to appeal," without naming a deadline or a further decision-maker. This page reproduces both rather than resolving the gap between them. 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
Undergraduate Academic Integrity Policy	csub.edu/deanofstudents — Undergraduate Academic Integrity Policy (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026)
Academic integrity reporting and student-conduct procedures overview	csub.edu/deanofstudents — Student Conduct Procedures (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026)
CSU Student Conduct Process (systemwide; evidentiary standard, advisors, recording, transcript notation)	calstate.policystat.com — Student Conduct Process (status shown as Active; no on-page revision date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026)
Dean of Students Office	Numenor Building, 9001 Stockdale Highway, Bakersfield, CA 93311 · 661-654-2680 · deanofstudents@csub.edu — csub.edu/deanofstudents (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026)
Ombudsperson	csub.edu/deanofstudents — Ombudsperson (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 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.

04Change log

Revision history of this page

2026-10-07 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the pages linked beside them; none of the five sources displays its own on-page date, and the CSU Student Conduct Process shows only a status of "Active." Named-vendor and category detection sweeps run against csub.edu per the research method; no detector was located, and no statement of a deliberate deactivation was located either — the inventory is empty rather than disqualifying. The Student Conduct Process page is a large client-rendered PolicyStat document; this review read it through a browser rather than a plain fetch (saved to tools/supplied/csub-source3.txt) and located the standard-of-proof, advisor-accompaniment and recording provisions within it. Its Article III, the track governing academic-integrity cases, ends at the president's "final decision" with no appeal step stated after it; a Chancellor's-Office appeal exists only in Article IV, the separate Nondiscrimination-Policy track. CSUB's own student-conduct-procedures page nonetheless asserts a student "right to appeal" without naming a process or deadline; both are reproduced on the page rather than reconciled. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-07).

2026-10-07 — Internet Archive captures requested this date by an automated capture pass; 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: CSU Student Conduct Process — PolicyStat → https://web.archive.org/web/20261007123802/https://calstate.policystat.com/policy/17620338/latest/; csub.edu/deanofstudents → https://web.archive.org/web/20261007123831/https://csub.edu/deanofstudents; CSUB Undergraduate Academic Integrity Policy → https://web.archive.org/web/20261007123901/https://csub.edu/deanofstudents/_files/UndergraduateAcademicIntegrityPolicy.pdf; csub.edu — Ombudsperson → https://web.archive.org/web/20261007123922/https://www.csub.edu/deanofstudents/ombudsperson; csub.edu/deanofstudents — Student Conduct Procedures → https://web.archive.org/web/20261007123955/https://www.csub.edu/deanofstudents/student-conduct-procedures.

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