Eastern Washington University.

What Chapter 172-90 WAC, Student Academic Integrity, says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

An Academic Integrity Board (AIB) review is closed: "Neither the student nor the instructor is permitted to attend the AIB review," though "[a]ll evidence collected in this process will be made available to the student and/or instructor upon request." Where a case is instead referred for a full student-conduct hearing (suspension or expulsion), a separate EWU conduct-advisor page states an advisor "may consult with the party they are helping, but cannot speak on their behalf" in a brief adjudicative hearing, and "[s]tudents may also seek legal counsel at their own expense." Recording of a proceeding is not addressed in the sources reviewed. — Chapter 172-90 WAC · Chapter 172-90 WAC: Student Academic Integrity

What follows on the record

"A sanction of a failing course grade is recorded on the transcript as an “XF”" and "[a]n XF is counted as a 0.0 for purposes of grade point average calculation." Suspension and expulsion sanctions may also be noted on a transcript. Records are stated to be protected under FERPA and chapter 172-191 WAC, with retention following the university's records-retention schedule (not itself reproduced here). — Chapter 172-90 WAC · Chapter 172-90 WAC: Student Academic Integrity

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

Chapter 172-90 WAC (effective June 26, 2022; retrieved Oct 13, 2026) sets a dedicated process for academic-integrity charges, separate from the general student conduct code. Anyone who suspects a violation is expected to report it to the instructor or another university official; the instructor may dismiss the matter, resolve a suspected Class I violation internally, or report it to the associate vice president (AVP), generally within seven calendar days of becoming aware of it. A student notified of a charge may accept responsibility, request a conference with the instructor, or request AIB review; the page's own description of the summary process treats continued silence after a second notice as an admission. The evidentiary standard is preponderance of the evidence — "the evidence indicates that it is more likely than not that the accused person actually committed the violation." Possible sanctions "may be combined and may include, but are not limited to" a verbal or written reprimand, an educational opportunity such as a course or tutorial, a grade penalty on the assignment or the course, course failure (the XF notation above), removal from the academic program, suspension "for a definite period of time," and expulsion. "Either the student or the instructor may request reconsideration by the Provost or designee … within 21 calendar days after the board issues its written decision," and "the Provost or designee shall issue a decision in writing within 21 calendar days of receipt of the request for review." The Provost's decision is final within the university; judicial review may be available under chapter 34.05 RCW. A recommendation of suspension or expulsion is instead referred for a full adjudicative proceeding under the separate student conduct code, chapter 172-121 WAC, which carries its own appeal path under WAC 172-121-130. Source: Chapter 172-90 WAC: Student Academic Integrity. 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.

Revision history of this page

2026-10-13 — Page created. Cold build (no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts research). All quotations retrieved this date. Chapter 172-90 WAC carries its own "Effective: June 26, 2022" date; the Academic Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI PDF carries its own "Date Posted: 3/4/2024" with a logged revision to 3/12/2024 ("Added link with syllabi examples"); the Copyleaks and Turnitin IT pages show no on-page date beyond a 2026 site-wide footer copyright. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI writing indicator specifically, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) found Turnitin (plagiarism/similarity only, per EWU's own page) and Copyleaks (named first-party as "a plagiarism and AI detection tool," offered through Canvas for every instructor) deployed, and Respondus LockDown Browser/Monitor deployed as an exam-lockdown/proctoring product with no AI-writing-detection claim, recorded in the sweep rather than presented as a detector. Category sweep covered Faculty Commons' AI-resources page, EWU's AI tools hub (aihub-style guidance pages), and the library's site; none named an additional detector in either direction. GENUINE TENSION ON THE RECORD, NOT RESOLVED HERE: the Provost-issued Academic Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI (2024, last revised 2024-03-12) state EWU does "not recommend that instructors rely upon AI detection tools," calling them unreliable with examples (OpenAI's discontinued classifier, bias against non-native English speakers); the same document directs a faculty member who suspects misuse to report to the "Student Success, Policy, and Planning Office." Treated as a recommendation against relying on a detector, not a statement that detection has been withdrawn or disabled — Copyleaks remains documented as currently offered on a separate, undated IT page, and the two pages were not reconciled with each other by EWU. NAMING DIVERGENCE, RECORDED NOT RESOLVED: the Guidelines PDF names the reporting office "Student Success, Policy, and Planning Office," while EWU's current academic-integrity contact page (ewu.edu/about/leadership/academic-affairs/academic-integrity) names the same reporting function under "Academic Affairs Office," with identical named contacts (Dr. Heather Veeder; Leslie Swannack) and identical phone/email on both the ewu.edu and ewu.edu/academicaffairs copies of that contact page, fetched and compared this date. The docket uses the titles and office framing as published on that contact page, since it is the more specific and more recently structured of the two. AUTHENTICATION-GATED, same pattern as Auburn's and Georgia Tech's ServiceNow knowledge bases and UNI's CatID-gated IT article: EWU's Freshservice-hosted Turnitin support articles ("Turnitin Plagiarism Detection," "Viewing Turnitin Results (Students)") redirect a plain fetch to campus single sign-on; listed by title and link only, nothing quoted from either. Published process drawn from Chapter 172-90 WAC itself: the AIB review is closed to both parties, preponderance of the evidence is the standard, the XF transcript notation and full sanctions list are quoted, and the Provost-reconsideration deadlines are quoted. A suspension-or-expulsion recommendation is instead referred to the separate student conduct code (Chapter 172-121 WAC); its WAC 172-121-030 rights list and the "What is a Student Conduct Advisor?" page were read for the accompaniment row, since Chapter 172-90 itself does not address an advisor at the AIB stage. Recording of any proceeding is not addressed in either chapter as read this pass. Ombuds/advocacy search ("ombuds," "ombudsperson," "student advocacy," "dean of students advocacy") found Student Accommodations and Support Services (accommodations-scoped, not general advocacy), the Dean of Students' general contact page (student life, not an advocacy or ombuds office by its own description), and the Student Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) office, which describes itself as handling the student conduct process rather than advocacy or an ombuds function; none is presented here as an ombuds or advocacy office. Office contact: the academic-integrity contact page publishes two named contacts with full phone and email for each, both quoted in the docket. Deliberately not used: a 2017 proposed-rule filing and a 2024 "first read" draft of Chapter 172-121 WAC, both superseded by the current adopted text; a 2023-dated eLearning description of an April 2023 Turnitin AI-writing rollout was not located this pass and is not relied on. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-14).

2026-10-14 — 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: Academic Guidelines for the Use of Generative AI → https://web.archive.org/web/20261014042148/https://inside.ewu.edu/it/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2024/03/Academic-Guidelines-for-the-Use-of-Generative-AI.pdf; lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov — WAC 172-121-030 → https://web.archive.org/web/20261014042338/https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/Law/WAC/WAC%20172%20%20TITLE/WAC%20172%20-121%20%20CHAPTER/WAC%20172%20-121%20-030.htm; ewu.edu/about/leadership/academic-affairs/academic-integrity → https://web.archive.org/web/20261014042411/https://www.ewu.edu/about/leadership/academic-affairs/academic-integrity/.

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