Florida A&M University.

Detection status: Turnitin's AI detector is confirmed available ("the one in TurnItIn"); the Generative AI Coursework Use Policy's Faculty FAQ states results "should never be the sole basis for an academic integrity decision"
Office in these sources: Office of Student Conduct & Conflict Resolution · CASS Building, Suite 307, 1735 Wahnish Way · 850-599-3541 · studentconduct@famu.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: University Ombuds — self-described as "confidential, impartial, independent and informal," serving "students, staff and faculty"; a seat on the Academic Honesty Council itself · Foote-Hilyer Administration Center, Room 308 · sylvia.petties@famu.edu · 850-599-3183
Sources last checked: Oct 10, 2026

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

FAMU'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 and department rules may also apply, and FAMU's own faculty guidance leaves the specific course-level AI policy to the instructor. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

Turnitin's AI detector is available but not to be relied on alone

FAMU's Generative AI Coursework Use Policy Faculty FAQ (Teaching and Learning Center; PDF last modified Sep 29, 2026, retrieved Oct 10, 2026) addresses AI detection directly:

"Q: Should I use AI detectors, such as the one in TurnItIn, to determine whether students used AI for an assignment?" "A: AI detectors can be a limited reference tool, but they should not be used as definitive proof that a student used AI. Current research shows that these tools are inconsistent, prone to false positives, and especially unreliable when students edit or paraphrase AI-generated text. They may also disproportionately flag polished writing or work by multilingual students. Due to these limitations, AI detector results should never be the sole basis for an academic integrity decision. Best practice is to use detectors, if at all, only as one piece of contextual information, alongside assignment design, student work history, drafts, and direct conversation with the student about their process."

Source: FAMU Generative AI Coursework Use Policy — Faculty FAQ. This confirms Turnitin's AI-writing detection feature is available to FAMU faculty, while instructing that its output never be the sole basis for a finding. The same FAQ ties unauthorized AI use to the general misconduct process:

"Unauthorized use of AI is considered like any other case of academic dishonesty. You should address these instances as you would any other case of academic misconduct, via instructor-led resolution or following the procedures in the Student Code of Conduct."

A separate opinion piece on the University's Hewlett Cyber Policy Institute blog, by a FAMU philosophy professor, discusses Turnitin's publicly reported industry-wide detection statistics and academic research on detector bias; it is the author's personal scholarly commentary rather than an institutional statement about FAMU's own deployment, and is not relied on here. A named-vendor sweep (SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) found no other detector.

02Published procedure

What FAMU's Academic Honesty policy says about how cases proceed

Who may be present: "The student may have an advisor of his/her choice present at the hearing" before the Academic Honesty Council — no restriction on the advisor's participation is stated. Recording is not addressed anywhere in the policy reviewed. — Academic Honesty, Policy BOTP-2017-01 (Initial Adoption Date 06/08/2017) · Academic Honesty — FAMU Board of Trustees Policy
What follows on the record: "Documentation of an academic honesty violation will appear on the student's official academic record" following a formal resolution; where an informal allegation is "unsubstantiated, any associated documentation will be sealed. No record of the allegation will be placed on the student transcript." "Grade forgiveness and/or course withdrawal will not be permitted for a course in which a formal resolution determined that the student has violated the policy." — Policy BOTP-2017-01 · Academic Honesty — FAMU Board of Trustees Policy

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

From Policy BOTP-2017-01, Academic Honesty (Initial Adoption Date 06/08/2017; Responsible Executive: Provost and VP for Academic Affairs; retrieved Oct 10, 2026), on how a case begins:

"The instructor will notify the student(s) of the violation(s) of academic honesty no later than 5 business days after becoming aware of the suspected violation." "If the student rejects the resolution, the instructor will complete the 'Academic Honesty Referral Form' and forward it and all associated documentation, to the dean/director of the college/school/institute."

If the student appeals the college-level committee's decision, the matter goes to the Academic Honesty Council, an advisory body to the Provost with five members including the University Ombudsman and the SGA President: "The Council shall hold a meeting no later than 30 days following receipt of the appeal," and "[a] recommendation of responsible or not responsible on the charges shall be based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing." No evidentiary standard (such as "preponderance") is named beyond that phrase. "The recommendation, by majority vote of the Council, shall be presented to the Provost in writing within 14 business days following the hearing," and "[t]he Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs shall render a decision within 10 days of receipt of the recommendation. This decision is final and binding and may not be appealed." Where a case also implicates "the student code of conduct found in FAMU BOT Regulation 2.012," it "will be referred to the Office of Student Conduct & Conflict Resolution and FAMU BOT Regulations 2.012 and 2.013 will apply" — those regulations were not independently fetched this pass. Source: Academic Honesty — FAMU Board of Trustees Policy. 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
Academic Honesty (Policy BOTP-2017-01)	policy.famu.edu/B.aspx?BookId=13998&PageId=473755
Generative AI Coursework Use Policy — Faculty FAQ	famu.edu/info/faculty-staff/teaching-and-learning-center/FAMU - FAQ for Faculty.pdf
Office of Student Conduct & Conflict Resolution	famu.edu/administration/division-of-student-affairs/office-of-student-conduct-and-conflict-resolution — CASS Building Suite 307 · 850-599-3541
University Ombuds	famu.edu/students/student-resources/health-and-wellbeing/university-ombuds — Foote-Hilyer Administration Center, Room 308 · 850-599-3183
AI Cheating Detection (CYPI Blog, provenance only — not used as an institutional statement)	famu.edu/academics/cypi/hewlett-cyber-policy-institute-blog/ai-cheating-detection.php

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

2026-10-10 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the famu.edu and policy.famu.edu pages linked beside them; Policy BOTP-2017-01 carries its own "Initial Adoption Date: 06/08/2017" with no later revision date shown, and the Generative AI Faculty FAQ PDF carries its own metadata ModDate of Sep 29, 2026. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) confirmed only Turnitin's AI detector, named in the Faculty FAQ; no IT/LMS support page documenting Turnitin's general plagiarism-similarity deployment was located, so this page's detection finding rests on the Faculty FAQ alone — a narrower confirmation than most built pages in this collection, stated rather than inferred. PROVENANCE CAUGHT: a Hewlett Cyber Policy Institute blog post by a named FAMU professor discusses Turnitin's publicly reported industry detection statistics and bias research; it is personal scholarly commentary, not an institutional statement about FAMU's own tools, and is recorded in section 01 with that distinction rather than folded into the detection finding. Category sweep covered the Division of Student Affairs directory and the University Ombuds FAQ (for contact details). FAMU BOT Regulations 2.012 (Student Code of Conduct) and 2.013 (Due Process, Other Rights, and Responsibilities), cross-referenced by the Academic Honesty policy, were not independently fetched this pass; nothing on this page relies on them beyond the policy's own cross-reference. Nothing else paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-10).

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