Hunter College.

What Hunter's and CUNY's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

Not addressed for the initial instructor conversation or for the Academic Integrity Officer's fact-finding step. Where a case reaches Hunter's Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee — used both for disputed academic-sanction cases and for disciplinary-sanction cases — the governing CUNY Bylaws provision applies: the student has the right "to be assisted or represented by an advisor or legal counsel at their expense," and if requested the college will help find one. Recording is addressed for that same hearing: "The college shall make a record of each fact-finding hearing by some means such as a stenographic transcript, an audio recording or the equivalent... No other recording of the proceedings may be permitted." — CUNY Bylaws, Article XV §15.4 (retrieved Sep 11, 2026) · Article XV — CUNY Policy

What follows on the record

Where a case reaches the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee, "The college bears the burden of proving the charge(s) by a preponderance of the evidence," and "the college must place a notation of the findings and penalty on a respondent's transcript" absent a mediation agreement saying otherwise. That notation "shall be removed, as a matter of right, upon the request of the respondent... four years after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding or one year after the conclusion of any suspension" — whichever period is longer. Not stated in the sources reviewed: disclosure to a graduate program, employer, or licensing board. For a case resolved earlier — the student admits the violation and does not contest the grade — no committee hearing occurs and no transcript notation is described; the record is a confidential academic-integrity file kept by the Academic Integrity Officer, destroyed if the student is later exonerated. — CUNY Bylaws, Article XV §15.4, and CUNY Academic Integrity Policy §3.3, §4.4 (rev. Jun 27, 2024; retrieved Sep 11, 2026) · Article XV — CUNY Policy

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

Academic integrity at Hunter runs on the CUNY Academic Integrity Policy (rev. Jun 27, 2024, adopted by the CUNY Board of Trustees to add generative-AI language to the 2022 policy; retrieved Sep 11, 2026), implemented through Hunter's own procedures. The policy defines cheating to include "the unauthorized use or attempted use of material, information, notes, study aids, devices, artificial intelligence (AI) systems, or communication during an academic exercise," and separately treats "[u]nauthorized use of AI-generated content" as plagiarism if uncited. A faculty member who suspects a violation files online with Hunter's Academic Integrity Officer:

If the student admits the violation and does not contest the grade penalty, the instructor applies the sanction directly and no hearing occurs. If the student admits the violation but contests only its severity, the route is "the College's grade appeal procedure." If the student denies the violation, Hunter's own procedure states:

Source: Hunter College Procedures for Reporting Academic Integrity Violations. That committee "will deliberate in closed session (i.e., with neither student nor instructor present)" and issue written findings to the Academic Integrity Officer, who notifies both parties. Appeal from a Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee decision runs through CUNY Bylaws Article XV: "An appeal... shall be made in writing within fifteen (15) calendar days after the delivery of the decision appealed from," directed to the college president and, for a dismissal or suspension of one term or more, potentially onward to "the board committee on student affairs and special programs." Source: Article XV — CUNY Policy. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-11 — Page created. First-party material captured from hunter.cuny.edu (Brightspace LMS FAQ, dateModified May 11, 2026; Dean of Students Office, dateModified Mar 19, 2025), hunter-undergraduate.catalog.cuny.edu (Procedures for Reporting Academic Integrity Violations), libguides.library.hunter.cuny.edu (AI and Faculty Resources), cuny.edu (Academic Integrity Policy, rev. Jun 27, 2024, PDF metadata confirms creation date Jun 27, 2024, author Jose Pagan), policy.cuny.edu (Bylaws Article XV), and commons.hostos.cuny.edu (a sister CUNY college's Brightspace Turnitin faculty guide, used only for its CUNY-systemwide licensing statement). FIRST CUNY BUILD, resolving the open question the queue carried for it: CUNY's Academic Integrity Policy and CUNY Bylaws Article XV are systemwide documents that apply to every CUNY college, but campus-level implementation detail (Academic Integrity Officer procedures, office contact, LMS integration, ombuds/advocacy) is college-specific and was captured from Hunter's own pages, not assumed from the system level. The one system-level fact usable across CUNY colleges without re-verification at each one is the Hostos-documented licensing fact that the CUNY-licensed Turnitin instance lacks AI-generated-content detection; each future CUNY page should still confirm Turnitin's presence and LMS locally, since that is campus-specific. TRANSPORT NOTE, worth carrying to future CUNY/Hunter builds: hunter.cuny.edu returns HTTP 403 to this session's browser tool (both an in-app browser session and a plain WebFetch) on every path tried, including the homepage, while a direct curl fetch from this same host succeeds with HTTP 200 on every page cited above — the same host-vs-sandboxed-tool split this collection has already documented for buffalo.edu. All hunter.cuny.edu quotations were captured by direct curl fetch, not the browser tool. Two subdomains were unaffected: hunter-undergraduate.catalog.cuny.edu and policy.cuny.edu loaded normally in the browser tool. One page found stale and not used: the previously indexed hunter.cuny.edu "Plagiarism Prevention Tools (SafeAssign and Turnitin)" IT page now redirects to the generic Information Technology landing page (confirmed by curl to a 200 at a different URL) — CUNY's LMS migration from Blackboard to Brightspace, confirmed separately via the current Brightspace FAQ, appears to be why; the retired page is not cited. Detector sweep: 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 (Hunter IT pages, Hunter Libraries' AI guide, the CUNY Academic Integrity Policy) found Turnitin confirmed for similarity checking only; the Hostos guide's CUNY-licensing statement is the only first-party statement on AI-detection capability, and it is negative. Not disqualified: no detector was ever documented as in use for AI-writing detection specifically, so neither disqualification branch (no documented detector remains in use; every detector found is disabled or recommended against) is met — Turnitin's similarity function remains actively documented as integrated, distinguishing this from a school that disabled a previously active AI-detection feature. Ombuds/advocacy sweep: no standalone ombudsperson office was located on hunter.cuny.edu (a site search for "ombudsperson" returned only a client-rendered results page with no visible hits to a plain fetch); the Dean of Students Office is presented in the docket with the structural caveat that it also houses the Office of Student Conduct that runs these very cases, since Hunter's own pages do not describe it as independent or confidential and this page does not supply that characterization either. Record row: Article XV's transcript-notation and four-year removal provisions are stated as applying once a case reaches the Faculty-Student Disciplinary Committee; for the more common admitted-violation, academic-sanction-only path, no transcript notation is described in the sources reviewed, and that is stated as such rather than assumed. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-11).

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 2026-09-12 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: Hunter College Procedures for Reporting Academic Integrity Violations → https://web.archive.org/web/20260912043032/https://hunter-undergraduate.catalog.cuny.edu/pages/ZjTFTElUXvB5rODt3TIR; libguides.library.hunter.cuny.edu/AI/faculty → https://web.archive.org/web/20260912043105/https://libguides.library.hunter.cuny.edu/AI/faculty.

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