Central Washington University.

Detection status: No AI-text detector is named as deployed anywhere in CWU's own pages; Turnitin is documented by the campus's own quick-start guide only for "plagiarism detection," and WAC 106-125's definition of academic dishonesty names no detection tool
Office in these sources: Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities · Bouillon Hall 205 · 509-963-1817 · Student.Conduct@cwu.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: None located on the institution's own pages in this review.
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.

CWU'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 apply, and the code itself preserves instructors' own authority to respond to classroom-level academic dishonesty. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

What CWU's own pages document

CWU's Student Conduct Code, codified as Washington Administrative Code chapter 106-125 and published on the university's own site (no on-page revision date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026), defines academic dishonesty without naming any detection tool:

"Academic dishonesty. The term "academic dishonesty" for purposes of this student code includes cheating, plagiarism, and fabrication. Nothing in this student code shall be construed as limiting the authority of faculty and academic administrators to assign academic consequences for these or other forms of academic misconduct."

Source: WAC 106-125: Student Conduct Code — cwu.edu. Separately, the Office of Multimodal Learning's own Turnitin quick-start guide for faculty positions the tool only as a plagiarism check (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026):

"Submit document for plagiarism detection"

Source: Turnitin Quick Submit Option — Office of Multimodal Learning. No CWU page located in this review names Turnitin's AI-writing feature, or any other AI-text detector, as licensed, enabled, disabled or recommended against. The inventory is empty rather than a documented deactivation.

Scope of the search behind the above: a named-vendor sweep of cwu.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 WAC 106-125, the Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities pages, and the Office of Multimodal Learning's instructional materials for Canvas and Turnitin. No detector beyond plain Turnitin plagiarism checking was located, and no campus-wide statement enabling or disabling AI-text detection was located.

02Published procedure

What CWU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: "Any party may be accompanied at the hearing by an advisor of the party's choice." A respondent may instead be represented by an attorney "at such party's own cost," subject to a notice requirement. — WAC 106-125-075(5) (retrieved Oct 7, 2026). On recording: "The council advisor shall cause the hearing to be recorded pursuant to RCW 34.05.449 by a method the advisor selects. Other recording shall be permitted in accordance with WAC 10-08-190."
What follows on the record: "A sanction of conduct dismissal shall be recorded on the student's academic transcript." — WAC 106-125-030(4) (retrieved Oct 7, 2026). Lesser sanctions (reprimand, probation, a short suspension) are not stated to carry a transcript notation. 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.

WAC 106-125 defines its own evidentiary standard directly (retrieved Oct 7, 2026):

"Preponderance of evidence. The term "preponderance of the evidence" is a standard of proof requiring that facts alleged as constituting a violation of this code must be proved on a more likely than not basis."

Source: WAC 106-125: Student Conduct Code — cwu.edu. On appeal windows, the code states two separate deadlines depending on the sanction: "The respondent may appeal disciplinary action imposing a conduct reprimand, conduct probation, conduct suspension not in excess of 10 days, removal from student housing, or denial of eligibility to participate in intercollegiate athletics by filing a written notice of appeal with the conduct review officer within 10 days of service of the disciplinary decision." A harsher sanction gets longer: "The respondent may appeal disciplinary action imposing a conduct suspension in excess of 10 days or a conduct dismissal by filing a written notice of appeal with the conduct review officer within 20 days of service of the disciplinary decision." 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
WAC 106-125 — Student Conduct Code (definitions, sanctions, advisors, recording, appeals)	cwu.edu/about/policies — WAC 106-125 (no on-page revision date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026)
Turnitin Quick Submit Option (Office of Multimodal Learning)	cwu.edu/academics — Turnitin Quick Submit Option (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 7, 2026)
Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities	Bouillon Hall 205 · 509-963-1817 · Student.Conduct@cwu.edu — cwu.edu/student-life — Student Conduct Officers (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; neither WAC 106-125 nor the Turnitin quick-start guide displays its own on-page date. Named-vendor and category detection sweeps run against cwu.edu per the research method; no detector beyond plain Turnitin plagiarism checking was located. WAC 106-125 is a single document covering both the general student conduct process and the definition of academic dishonesty, so this page does not reproduce the two-tier faculty-policy/general-code divergence seen at some other institutions; the code's own text instead preserves faculty authority over classroom-level academic consequences directly within its definition of academic dishonesty, while the formal preponderance, advisor, recording and appeal provisions it supplies govern code-level disciplinary action. A search for "ombuds," "ombudsperson" and "student advocacy" across cwu.edu located no such CWU office; none was located. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-07).

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