Franklin University.

Detection status: Turnitin's AI-writing detection report confirmed first-party, visible only to the instructor; the Academic Misconduct policy separately authorizes "University-approved plagiarism and AI detection tools" without naming one; unauthorized AI use is its own defined form of plagiarism
Office in these sources: Office of Community Standards (OCS) · advocate@franklin.edu — no office phone or physical address published; formal reports are filed through Maxient, the University's reporting service
Ombuds or advocacy office: None located on the institution's own pages in this review.
Sources last checked: Sep 7, 2026

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

Franklin'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 Lead Faculty instructions may also apply, and Franklin's own policy leaves the choice of violation level, in part, to the instructor and the Office of Community Standards. The University updated this policy and process effective the Fall 2025 term. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

Turnitin's AI report runs instructor-side; unauthorized AI use is named plagiarism

The University Library's Turnitin guide for instructors states (page dated Aug 10, 2026; retrieved Sep 7, 2026):

"Turnitin will also check for generative AI usage, but only the instructor will receive that report. The AI detection report estimates the probability that content was generated by AI."

Separately, the Community Standards page's Academic Integrity Policy defines plagiarism to include AI misuse and requires advance approval (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026):

"Using artificial intelligence (AI) technology to create academic work, in whole or in part, without prior approval." "Please note: The use of generative AI tools is permitted only if specifically approved by Lead Faculty in advance. Without such approval, any use of generative AI to produce academic work is prohibited."

The policy's violation levels describe detector output as one basis, among others, for a finding: a Level 1 example is "Turning in work that yields a likelihood of plagiarism or AI-generated content based on University-approved plagiarism and AI detection tools, accompanied by credible contextual indicators (e.g., inconsistent writing style or past concerns)"; a Level 2 example is "Submitting work that reflects an increased likelihood of plagiarism or AI-generated content as indicated by University-approved detection tools." Neither passage names the tool. Turnitin is the only AI-text detector named on any Franklin page found in this review; Honorlock, named on the University's testing-center and technology-support pages, is exam proctoring and not evidence of text detection.

A named-vendor sweep of franklin.edu and guides.franklin.edu (Turnitin, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep of LMS/integration, IT service-catalogue, teaching-center and library pages found nothing beyond what is quoted above.

Source: Using TurnItIn: Instructors — Franklin University Nationwide Library; Community Standards & Student Code of Conduct — Franklin University; Artificial Intelligence (AI): Overview — Franklin University Nationwide Library (page dated Jan 27, 2026; retrieved Sep 7, 2026), which directs students to the Academic Misconduct policy and names no detector itself.

02Published procedure

What Franklin's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: Not stated for an Academic Honor Board review specifically. The general Student Code of Conduct Hearing is described as: "The Hearing will be attended by two parties: Two assigned Hearing Officers and the student." No support person, adviser, or observer is named for that hearing, and no recording provision is stated anywhere in the pages reviewed. (No on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026.) · Community Standards & Student Code of Conduct
What follows on the record: Of the lowest level, the policy states: "It does not create a formal disciplinary notation and will not appear on a student's transcript." No corresponding transcript language is published for Level 1, 2, or 3 violations; the policy states only that "a violation of academic misconduct may eliminate them from consideration for academic honors." No retention period or third-party disclosure is stated. (No on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026.) · Community Standards & Student Code of Conduct

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

The policy sets four levels of academic misconduct, quoted here in full (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026):

"Formal Warning" "This Formal Warning is intended to address a substantiated academic integrity violation through education and corrective action. It does not include a reduction in points, a zero grade on an assignment or assessment, or any other grade-related consequence. It does not create a formal disciplinary notation and will not appear on a student's transcript." "Level 1 Violations are acts committed by the student that cause limited negative impact toward the learning process. Level 1 Violations are reviewed by the instructor of the course and the Office of Community Standards and may result in a sanctions spanning from a reduction in points up to no credit for the assignment and a formal charge." "Level 2 Violations are intentional acts committed by the learner that cause a direct negative impact toward the learning process. The first Level 2 Violation is reviewed by the Office of Community Standards and the faculty member that submitted the report and will result in a sanction spanning a zero grade on the assignment up to a failing grade in the course. A second Level 2 Violation in a subsequent class or subsequent section of a class already taken is reviewed and adjudicated by the Academic Honor Board and will result in a sanction spanning a zero grade in the class up to disciplinary dismissal from the University." "Level 3 Violations are intentional acts committed by the learner that cause a direct and disruptive impact toward the learning process. Level 3 Violations are reviewed by the Academic Honor Board and will result in sanctions spanning a failing grade in the class up to disciplinary dismissal from the University."

On evidentiary standard, the policy states this only for grievance and appeal decisions, not for the initial Level 1-3 determination itself: "A conclusion is made about the appeal per the preponderance of the evidence." Elsewhere, for the general Student Code of Conduct process, the policy defines the term: "A preponderance of the evidence is stated as the greater weight of the evidence providing a conclusion."

On appeal, a student may challenge "a recent Academic Misconduct, Non-Academic Misconduct or Student Grievance decision" by "completing the Petition for Appeal Form," on one or more of three stated criteria (procedural deviation causing material harm; substantial new evidence, for non-academic cases only; or a disproportionate sanction). No specific window for filing that petition is stated in the pages reviewed. Once filed, "The appeal review may take up to 15 calendar days, depending on the complexity of the issues involved." Academic-misconduct appeals are decided by the "Course Instructor/Lead Faculty in which the appeal originated, or Academic Honor Board (or designee)." Students are "permitted one appeal per decision," and the appeal decision "is final and not subject to further appeals."

Source: Community Standards & Student Code of Conduct — Franklin University. 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
Community Standards & Student Code of Conduct (Academic Integrity Policy, violation levels, process, sanctions, appeals, Office of Community Standards)	franklin.edu — Community Standards & Student Code of Conduct (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026)
Using TurnItIn: Instructors (AI-detection report, instructor visibility)	guides.franklin.edu — Using TurnItIn: Instructors (page dated Aug 10, 2026; retrieved Sep 7, 2026)
Artificial Intelligence (AI): Overview (directs to the Academic Misconduct policy; names no detector)	guides.franklin.edu — Artificial Intelligence (AI): Overview (page dated Jan 27, 2026; retrieved Sep 7, 2026)
Updated Academic Integrity Policy and Process (announcement of the Fall 2025 update; Office of Community Standards contact)	franklin.edu blog — Updated Academic Integrity Policy and Process (Oct 24, 2025; retrieved Sep 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

2026-09-07 — Page created. First-party material captured from four franklin.edu / guides.franklin.edu pages: Community Standards & Student Code of Conduct (Academic Integrity Policy, four-level violation ladder, Student Code of Conduct hearing procedure, appeal process), the Library's Turnitin instructor guide (page dated Aug 10, 2026), the Library's AI overview guide (page dated Jan 27, 2026), and the Oct 24, 2025 blog post announcing the Fall 2025 policy update, which names the Office of Community Standards' address as advocate@franklin.edu. The Community Standards page itself displays no on-page date. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and category sweep (LMS integrations, IT service catalogue, teaching-center and library guidance) found only Turnitin as a named AI-text detector; Honorlock is documented as exam proctoring and is not evidence of text detection. Neither the Academic Misconduct policy nor the AI overview guide names Turnitin as the "University-approved" detection tool the policy authorizes; that identification is not made on Franklin's own pages and is not asserted here — both facts are presented side by side in section 01. A prior Academic Misconduct Process PDF (rev. Sep 2023) found via search-engine indexing returned an HTTP 404 and was not used; the current Community Standards page describes itself as reflecting the University's updated policy effective the Fall 2025 term, per the Oct 24, 2025 blog post, and is treated as superseding it. Ombuds/advocacy sweep (ombuds, ombudsman, student advocate, student advocacy) came back empty; recorded as none located — the Office of Community Standards describes its own mission as including to "advocate for members of the Campus Community," but it is the same office that investigates and sanctions, not a separate advocacy office, so it is not presented as one. No evidentiary standard is published for the initial Level 1-3 determination; "preponderance of the evidence" is published only for grievance and appeal decisions, and is quoted at that scope. One source could not be captured this pass: the Zendesk-hosted "AI Best Practices for Staff and Faculty" help article (support.franklin.edu, HTTP 403 to a plain fetch); it was not used. Disqualification check: not disqualified — Turnitin's AI-detection report is documented as currently running, with no statement disabling or recommending against it. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-08).

2026-09-13 — Editorial review. Carrie Schluter read this page in full against its recorded first-party sources and found no change required. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-13).

2026-10-06 — Internet Archive captures requested on 2026-09-08 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: Artificial Intelligence (AI): Overview — Franklin University Nationwide Library → https://web.archive.org/web/20260908120401/https://guides.franklin.edu/ai; Using TurnItIn: Instructors — Franklin University Nationwide Library → https://web.archive.org/web/20260908120442/https://guides.franklin.edu/turnitin/canvas; franklin.edu blog — Updated Academic Integrity Policy and Process → https://web.archive.org/web/20260908120516/https://www.franklin.edu/current-students/blog/updated-academic-integrity-policy-and-process-0; Community Standards & Student Code of Conduct — Franklin University → https://web.archive.org/web/20260908120639/https://www.franklin.edu/current-students/student-services/community-standards.

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