East Tennessee State University.

What the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"Both the student and Instructor may be assisted by any advisor they choose, at their own expense... Both parties are responsible for presenting their own case and advisors are not permitted to speak or to participate directly in any hearing." An attorney-advisor must be disclosed at least one business day before the hearing. The hearing record — "such as minutes or a recording" — "is the property of the university." — Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy, §§3.4–3.5 (Policy Revised Effective Date May 22, 2025; retrieved Sep 26, 2026) · Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy

What follows on the record

Not stated in the sources reviewed: this policy states no transcript-notation provision anywhere in its text. Records are addressed only generally — "[a]ll records are maintained in accordance with ETSU's Records Retention Policy," are "considered internal to the university" and "are not disclosed in standard disciplinary history reports," and access by the student is "governed by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)." No specific retention period is stated in this policy. — Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy, §6 (retrieved Sep 26, 2026) · Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy

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

The Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy (Policy Effective Date January 22, 2019; Policy Revised Effective Date May 22, 2025; retrieved Sep 26, 2026) states the evidentiary standard and the hearing board's process:

Source: Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy. An appeal may be filed in writing with the Provost/designee "within five (5) Business Days of the written outcome," limited to "a material procedural error that directly affected the outcome" or a sanction "inconsistent with the requirements of this policy"; the policy states plainly that "[g]eneral dissatisfaction with the outcome of the decision is not a basis for consideration of an appeal," and "[t]he decision of the Provost/designee is final." What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; these are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-26 — Page created by a scheduled, unattended build pass. All quotations retrieved this date from the etsu.edu pages linked beside them; the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy PDF displays "Policy Effective Date: January 22, 2019 • Policy Revised Effective Date: May 22, 2025," the Teaching Toolkit page displays "updated August 21, 2026," and the Turnitin support page displays no on-page date. Detection-inventory sweep performed: 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) and category sweep (Academic Technology Services' support pages, the Teaching Toolkit's Gen-AI-misconduct guidance, and the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy) of etsu.edu. NOT DISQUALIFIED: this is a documented, presently-available deployment with caution language attached, the auburn/georgiatech/buffalo pattern rather than the Sacramento State/Oklahoma State pattern — no ETSU page states that AI detection has been disabled or is recommended against; the Teaching Toolkit page's own reference list cites Vanderbilt University's 2023 decision to disable Turnitin's AI detector as an external resource for instructors to read, not as ETSU's own position, and the page is explicit about that distinction so a reader does not mistake a cited resource for a first-party disabling statement. A preliminary web search suggested ETSU was governed by a University of Tennessee System AI-detection policy (policy.tennessee.edu, BT0035); this was checked and set aside as WRONG — ETSU is a locally governed institution under its own Board of Trustees (Tennessee FOCUS Act, 2016) and is not a University of Tennessee System campus, and no etsu.edu page adopts or cross-references BT0035. PROCESS: evidentiary standard, advisor rights, attorney-disclosure rule, hearing-record rule, and appeal window and grounds are all from the Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy PDF itself, captured via pdftotext directly against the PDF. SUBSTANTIVE FINDING: the policy states no transcript-notation provision anywhere in its text and no specific record-retention period, deferring instead to a general, uncited "ETSU's Records Retention Policy" — both recorded as absences rather than assumed. OFFICE: the policy's stated Responsible Office is the Office of the Provost, but undergraduate cases are actually reported to and adjudicated by the dean/designee of the student's own academic college — ETSU's Academic Integrity page lists nine separate college-dean contacts rather than one office, so the docket names the Provost's Office (the policy's own Responsible Office and a working contact) while stating plainly in Section 03 that adjudication itself is college-specific. OMBUDS TRAP CAUGHT: ETSU's own Ombudsperson page states in its own words that "[s]ervices are available to all faculty and staff who are part of an ETSU campus" and describes the office as "a confidential, neutral, and independent resource for all ETSU faculty and staff" — it does not serve students, and the docket says so rather than presenting a faculty/staff office as a student resource. No student-facing ombuds or independent advocacy office was located on etsu.edu in this review; the Dean of Students is named as the non-classroom contact point the policy itself directs students to, without describing it as independent or confidential, since ETSU's own pages do not use those words for that office. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Subreddit demand scan not run (outside this run's research method). Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-27).

2026-10-06 — Internet Archive captures requested on 2026-09-27 by an automated capture pass and recorded this date; 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: etsu.edu/academicintegrity → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042543/https://www.etsu.edu/academicintegrity/; Turnitin — Academic Technology Services → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042616/https://www.etsu.edu/its/ats/support/turnitin.php; Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042646/https://www.etsu.edu/policies/documents/academic-integrity-and-misconduct-policy.pdf; etsu.edu/provost — Contact Us → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042708/https://www.etsu.edu/provost/contactus.php; etsu.edu — Ombudsperson → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042741/https://www.etsu.edu/provost/ombudsperson.php; etsu.edu/students/dean-students → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042814/https://www.etsu.edu/students/dean-students/; What To Do If You Suspect Misconduct → https://web.archive.org/web/20260927042846/https://www.etsu.edu/teaching/teaching_toolkits_1/chatgpt_suspect_misconduct.php.

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