Queens College.

What Queens College’s and CUNY’s own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

Not addressed for the initial faculty conversation or for the Academic Integrity Officer’s fact-finding review. Where a case reaches a Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee — used both for disputed academic-sanction cases and for disciplinary-sanction cases — the governing CUNY Bylaws provision applies: the college, the respondent and the complainant “are permitted to have lawyers or other representatives or advisors act on their behalf during the pendency of a disciplinary action.” 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.” — CUNY Bylaws, Article XV §15.4 (retrieved Sep 18, 2026) · Article XV — CUNY Policy

What follows on the record

Where a case reaches the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee, “The college bears the burden of proving the charge(s) by a preponderance of the evidence,” and a respondent found responsible may obtain a copy of the hearing record “without cost upon the condition that it is not to be disseminated except to the respondent’s representative or attorney.” For a case resolved earlier — the student admits the violation and does not contest the grade — no committee hearing occurs; the record is a confidential academic-integrity file kept by the Academic Integrity Officer for “identifying repeat offenders, gathering data, and assessing and reviewing policies,” destroyed if the student is later found not to have committed a violation. Not stated in the sources reviewed: disclosure to a graduate program, employer, or licensing board. — CUNY Bylaws, Article XV §15.4, and CUNY Academic Integrity Policy §3.3, §4.4 (rev. Jun 27, 2024; retrieved Sep 18, 2026) · Article XV — CUNY Policy

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 Queens College runs on the CUNY Academic Integrity Policy (rev. Jun 27, 2024, adopted by the CUNY Board of Trustees to add generative-AI language to the 2022 policy; retrieved Sep 18, 2026), implemented through Queens College’s own catalog procedures. The policy defines cheating to include “the unauthorized use or attempted use of material, information, notes, study aids, devices, artificial intelligence (AI) systems, or communication during an academic exercise,” and separately treats “[u]nauthorized use of AI-generated content” as plagiarism if uncited. Source: CUNY Academic Integrity Policy. Queens College’s own undergraduate catalog names the college-level contact and review step:

Source: Academic Policies & Procedures — Queens College Catalog (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Sep 18, 2026). CETLL’s own academic-integrity page tells faculty who discover a suspected violation: “Gather documentation about the incident, then discuss it with your student. If the matter cannot be resolved this way, report it to the Office of Judicial Affairs.” Source: Academic Integrity — CETLL (retrieved Sep 18, 2026). If the student denies the violation, the CUNY policy sends fact-finding to a college Academic Integrity Committee or to the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee under Article XV, at the college’s option; Queens College’s own pages do not state which route the college has adopted for a contested academic-only case. Appeal from a Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee decision runs through CUNY Bylaws Article XV: “An appeal… shall be made in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days after the delivery of the decision appealed from,” directed to the college president. Source: Article XV — CUNY Policy. 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 and baruch.html, independently re-verified here). Slug “cunyqueens” chosen rather than “qc” or “queens” to avoid collision with Queens University of Charlotte and Queen’s University (Canada), neither of whose content was used. 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 (CETLL's site and its Generative AI in the Classroom guide, the Provost's CUNY Policies page, the Policies/Procedures & Reporting Misconduct page, the CUNY Academic Integrity Policy) found Turnitin confirmed for plagiarism checking and no AI-text detector confirmed by name. CETLL's own guide both notes that Turnitin "uses artificial intelligence tools to check content for plagiarism" and separately states "CETLL discourages the use of AI-detection tools," citing unreliability and bias — reproduced side by side without reconciling them, the same treatment this collection gives Auburn's parallel pair of statements. Not disqualified: no detector was ever documented as in use for AI-writing detection specifically (the CUNY-wide Hostos guide states the licensed Turnitin instance lacks that feature entirely), so neither disqualification branch — no documented detector remains in use, or every detector found is disabled or recommended against — is met; there is no in-use AI-writing detector for CETLL's recommendation to be "against." Process captured from Queens College's own undergraduate catalog (Academic Policies & Procedures, no on-page date) and qc.cuny.edu/policies/, both naming Emanuel Avila, Coordinator of Judicial Affairs, as the Academic Integrity Officer (Student Union, Room 327B; 718-997-3971; emanuel.avila@qc.cuny.edu — the office-level StudentConduct@qc.cuny.edu / (718) 997-5000 published by the separate Office of Student Conduct and Service Learning was found but not used in the docket, since the catalog names the integrity-specific contact). Neither Queens College page states whether a contested academic-only case (CUNY Policy §4.2.3) is routed to a college Academic Integrity Committee or to the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee under Article XV; that gap is stated in section 02 rather than assumed. Accompany and record rows draw on CUNY Bylaws Article XV, independently re-fetched and quoted directly from policy.cuny.edu rather than carried from hunter.html's citations of the same provisions. Ombuds/advocacy sweep: Queens College's Office of Student Advocacy & Appeals (qc.cuny.edu/saa) was found and read in full; it is the Undergraduate Scholastic Standards Committee's staff, handling academic-dismissal appeals, additional-credit registration, and course-withdrawal/temporary-grade extensions — it does not mention academic-integrity or conduct cases and does not claim independence, confidentiality, neutrality or impartiality, so it is not presented as an ombuds or advocacy resource for this page's subject; no other ombudsperson office was located on qc.cuny.edu. Deliberately omitted: a third-party attorney website's summary of Article XV hearing rights, not used because the same provisions were confirmed directly from policy.cuny.edu; a CUNY-wide March 2025 Board of Trustees YuJa online-proctoring contract mentioned in coverage of CUNY's move away from Respondus, not pursued because it concerns exam proctoring rather than AI-text detection and no first-party Queens College page confirming or scoping it to this campus was located. 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.