Idaho State University.

What ISU's Academic Integrity and Dishonesty Policy says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

At a Dean-level appeal hearing, "the student may bring one support person (faculty, staff or student), but this individual does not participate in the hearing." Before an Academic Dishonesty Panel, a similar non-voting support person is permitted. Recording is not addressed either way; the Dean "shall chair and conduct the hearing and keep a written record of the hearing." — Academic Integrity and Dishonesty Policy #4000, ISU Academic Catalog 2026-27 (effective Jul 27, 2015; revised Mar 4, 2025; retrieved Sep 27, 2026) · Academic Integrity and Dishonesty Policy

What follows on the record

A course-level penalty (grade reduction, failing an assignment, or failing the course) is documented in an incident report placed in "the student's permanent file" at the Registrar's office; it is not a transcript notation. Only a University-level Panel sanction is: "the Office of the Registrar shall record 'Suspension for Academic Dishonesty' on the student's permanent transcript," and likewise for expulsion. If a student is exonerated on appeal, the Dean requests "that all other reports about the alleged act of dishonesty be destroyed." — same source, retrieved Sep 27, 2026

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

Generative AI is addressed directly in the policy's definitions (retrieved Sep 27, 2026):

On the process itself: an instructor must notify a student in writing "within twenty (20) working days of the submission of the assignment in question" and, on a grade-affecting penalty, may decide "an act of Academic Dishonesty has occurred and impose a penalty" on the basis of "the preponderance of the evidence." An appeal of an instructor's penalty goes to the college Dean within "ten (10) business days"; the Dean's own decision, following a formal hearing, is likewise "based upon a preponderance of the evidence." A student facing a second "Fail the Course" penalty, a third penalty of any kind, or a case an instructor or administrator refers as significant, goes before an Academic Dishonesty Panel — the only body that may suspend or expel, "at the discretion of the Instructor or the Provost." The Panel's decision is "final and may not be challenged through the scholastic appeals process"; the policy's last-resort path runs outside the University: "All students or former students of the institution may apply to the Idaho State Board of Education Executive Director for review of any final institutional decision." Source: Academic Integrity and Dishonesty Policy. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; these are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-27 — Page created by a scheduled, unattended build pass. All quotations retrieved this date from isu.edu pages linked beside them, and from the Academic Integrity and Dishonesty Policy (ISU Academic Catalog 2026-27; the policy's own header states "Effective Date: July 27, 2015," "Revised: March 4, 2025," "Annual Review: December 2027"). Detection-inventory sweep performed: named-vendor sweep (Turnitin, Turnitin AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and category sweep (Academic Integrity Council pages, IT knowledge base, the Policy itself) found Turnitin's AI-generated-content indicator and a separate Turnitin "forensics linguistics tool" (available to the Council for high-stakes cases only), and no other AI-text detector. NOT DISQUALIFIED: a documented, presently-deployed tool with a stated reliability caveat attached ("a probable estimate rather than absolute proof," to be used "in conjunction with other forms of evidence") rather than a disabling or recommendation-against statement — the auburn/georgiatech/csueastbay pattern. PROCESS SOURCE: the Policy itself, which is unusually explicit about generative AI, naming it twice in its own definitions of Cheating and Plagiarism. SUBSTANTIVE FINDING: two parallel tracks exist — an instructor-level track (twenty-working-day notice window, preponderance standard, appeal to the college Dean within ten business days, a formal hearing with one non-participating support person) and a University-level track (an Academic Dishonesty Panel, the only body that may suspend or expel, activated by a second "Fail the Course" penalty, a third penalty of any kind, or a significant-incident referral) — both reproduced. TRANSCRIPT SCOPE: only a Panel-imposed suspension or expulsion is transcripted by name ("Suspension for Academic Dishonesty" / "Expulsion for Academic Dishonesty"); a course-level penalty is placed in the student's permanent file at the Registrar's office but is not described as a transcript notation, and exoneration on appeal triggers a destruction request for other reports — this distinction is stated explicitly and not inferred. LAST-RESORT APPEAL: the Policy names an external path after the Panel's decision — application to the Idaho State Board of Education Executive Director — which is reproduced because the Policy itself states it, not as advice about pursuing it. OMBUDS TRAP CHECKED: ISU's Ombuds program is explicitly faculty/staff-only ("All ISU employees, faculty or staff, have access to any of our ISU Ombuds," Ombuds FAQ, isu.edu/ombud/faq/ — the staffcouncil.../ombuds-representatives/ address a search engine surfaced for this topic 404s, confirmed both by direct fetch and by a live browser read; the FAQ page is the live source), the CSU East Bay pattern; the Dean of Students Office's own Advocacy Services page is student-facing but names no academic-integrity scope and is not described as independent, and the Policy itself lists the same office among every incident report's recipients and as a non-voting Panel participant — so it is recorded in the docket with that conflict noted rather than presented as an independent advocacy resource. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Subreddit demand scan not run (outside this run's research method). Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-27).

2026-10-06 — Internet Archive captures requested on 2026-09-28 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: Academic Integrity and Dishonesty Policy → https://web.archive.org/web/20260928121748/https://coursecat.isu.edu/undergraduate/academic_integrity_and_dishonesty_policy/; isu.edu/aic → https://web.archive.org/web/20260928121821/https://www.isu.edu/aic/; isu.edu/deanofstudents — Contact Us → https://web.archive.org/web/20260928121912/https://www.isu.edu/deanofstudents/about/contact-us/; isu.edu/ombud — FAQ → https://web.archive.org/web/20260928122003/https://www.isu.edu/ombud/faq/.

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