Fashion Institute of Technology.

Detection status: No AI-text detector is named anywhere on fitnyc.edu, including Turnitin; a teaching-center page calls AI detection tools "notoriously unreliable and inconsistent" and recommends alternatives
Office in these sources: Office of Academic Affairs · Feldman Center, C913 · 212-217-4040 · academicaffairs@fitnyc.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: None located on the institution's own pages in this review.
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.

FIT'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 FIT itself notes that instructors communicate their own course-specific AI expectations. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

No AI-text detector is named as deployed at FIT

A 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) found no hit anywhere on fitnyc.edu — not even a plain plagiarism-similarity product such as Turnitin or SafeAssign.

The college's Center for Excellence in Teaching (CET) publishes a page devoted to the subject, "AI Detection in Higher Education" (retrieved Oct 10, 2026, no page-stated date), which states:

"AI detection tools are notoriously unreliable and inconsistent, and you can never be certain that the results are accurate enough to serve as evidence of Artificial Intelligence use." "Many products claim 90% certainty of AI detection, but in practice demonstrate less than 60% accuracy because the engines designed to detect AI are constantly evolving."

The same page names two third-party products, Pangram and GPTZero, but only as tools a faculty member might test on their own, not as something FIT licenses or deploys: "AI Detection tools like Pangram or GPTZero can be tested by submitting examples of human-generated writing, then creating some text using AI and testing it. […] Just remember that AI detection is far from perfect; false positives are quite possible." Its suggested alternative is direct conversation: "Often, the best AI detector is you. […] When you do, proceed with caution, and instead of making accusations, just ask your student whether they used AI for any portion of the work in question." Source: AI Detection in Higher Education — Center for Excellence in Teaching.

This is teaching-center guidance aimed at faculty considering whether to try a detector themselves; it is not a statement that FIT has purchased, piloted, or disabled an institutional detection tool, and it is not embedded in the Academic Integrity policy's own procedure (see below). A separate page on AI use generally states, in the context of AI as a grading aid rather than AI detection: "Faculty are strongly discouraged from using AI tools to assess, grade, or evaluate student work. Relying on AI for these purposes can introduce bias, compromise academic integrity, and undermine the trust that is essential to the student-faculty relationship." Source: Related Policies and Considerations — AI Best Practices (retrieved Oct 10, 2026, no page-stated date). That sentence addresses AI grading student work, not AI detection of student AI use, and is recorded here with that distinction stated rather than folded into the detection finding above.

02Published procedure

What FIT's Academic Integrity policy says about how cases proceed

Who may be present: Students have the right to "[s]elect a Student Advisor to act in a confidential, supportive role during the process. Student Advisors may attend the hearing, but only as a silent observer," and "may not speak on behalf of the student, but may provide counsel to the student directly." Recording is not addressed anywhere in the policy reviewed. — Academic Integrity, Policy AA007, Last Updated February 2026 · AA007 — Academic Integrity
What follows on the record: "If a student receives an F as an Academic Penalty, a notation will be placed on their transcript indicating the grade was assigned due to Academic Dishonesty. This notation will remain on the transcript for two years from the date of assignment." The AIC Coordinator's responsibilities otherwise include "[m]aintaining accurate and complete records of all reports and actions taken, stored within the Office of the Vice President for Academic Affairs," per FIT's Records Retention and Disposition policy (not fetched this pass). — AA007 (Last Updated February 2026) · AA007 — Academic Integrity

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

From AA007, Academic Integrity (Issue Date November 2012; Last Updated February 2026; retrieved Oct 10, 2026), on how a case begins and is decided:

"Instructors who suspect a violation of Academic Integrity are expected to first engage in a conversation with the student to discuss their concerns and understand the circumstances." "The instructor must promptly inform the AIC Coordinator in writing via FIT Email of the details of the suspected violation and should CC their department chair on this communication." "The instructor will schedule a misconduct meeting to take place no later than five (5) business days after providing the student with written notice of the alleged violation." "The misconduct meeting will include the instructor, the student, the Student Advisor, and any witness to the alleged academic misconduct (if applicable)." "The AIC will make a decision… A determination of whether the student is responsible based on evidence, or if no violation occurred."

No evidentiary standard (such as a preponderance, or more-likely-than-not, standard) is named anywhere in the policy. If a student contests the finding, a hearing before the Academic Integrity Committee follows: "To request a hearing, the student must submit a written statement to the AIC Coordinator within five (5) business days of receiving the notification." The AIC "will make a reasonable effort to convene the hearing within 10 business days of the student's request," and "[b]oth the student and the instructor will be invited to attend to discuss the findings, but shall not be present in the hearing at the same time." A final AIC report follows within five business days, and "[a] student who wants to appeal the AIC's decision must submit a written appeal to the Vice President for Academic Affairs within five (5) business days of receiving notice of the decision," whose "decisions… are final." Where a Disciplinary Sanction (as opposed to an Academic Penalty) is recommended, the matter is "referred to the Dean of Students," and "the decision of the Academic Integrity Committee is accepted as factual; the Dean of Students assumes responsibility for determining appropriate disciplinary action," proceeding under the separate Code of Student Conduct (not fetched this pass) "in alignment with the SUNY Student Conduct Regulations." Source: AA007 — 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.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
Academic Integrity policy (AA007)	fitnyc.edu/documents/policies/aa007-academic-honor-code.pdf
AI Detection in Higher Education (CET)	fitnyc.edu/gateways/employees/faculty-academic-support/cet/teaching-with-technology/ai-explorer/ai-detection-in-higher-education.php
Related Policies and Considerations (AI Best Practices)	fitnyc.edu/about/required-information/ai-best-practices/policies.php
Office of Academic Affairs	Feldman Center, C913 · 212-217-4040 · academicaffairs@fitnyc.edu (from AA007's contacts section, retrieved Oct 10, 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

2026-10-10 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the fitnyc.edu pages linked beside them; AA007 carries its own "Issue Date: November 2012" and "Last Updated: February 2026," and the two AI-best-practices pages display no on-page date. 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) returned no hit anywhere on fitnyc.edu, including no Turnitin or SafeAssign of any kind — FIT appears to run no institutional plagiarism-similarity product either. Category sweep covered the CET teaching-with-technology hub, the AI Best Practices "Related Policies and Considerations" and "Guidance for the FIT Community" pages, and the Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on AI's SUNY FACT2 report (named-vendor sweep only; not independently read in full this pass — paraphrase-pending). Ombuds/advocacy search ("ombuds," "ombudsperson," "student advocate," "student advocacy") returned nothing; recorded as none located rather than inferred absent. Deliberately not used: the "Related Policies and Considerations" sentence discouraging AI-assisted grading, which concerns AI as a grading tool, not AI detection of student AI use, and is recorded in section 01 with that distinction stated. The Code of Student Conduct, referenced by AA007 for Disciplinary Sanction cases, was not fetched this pass and nothing on this page relies on it. 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.