New Mexico State University.

What NMSU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"Student Advisor: A person chosen by the accused student to provide consultation, guidance and/or support to the student through the various procedural steps outlined in the Student Academic Code of Conduct. […] The student advisor must not actively advocate or participate in the proceedings." — ARP 5.10, Part 5.G. (Last Updated 01/05/2018; retrieved Sep 24, 2026) · ARP 5.10 — Student Academic Code of Conduct, Academic Integrity

What follows on the record

"A finding of an academic integrity violation becomes part of the student's educational record maintained by the University Student Records Office." A Level II sanction may separately include "[a] notation of academic misconduct on the student's official transcript." — ARP 5.11, Part 8, and ARP 5.10, Part 4 (both Last Updated 01/05/2018; retrieved Sep 24, 2026) · ARP 5.11 — Procedures to Respond to Allegations of Student Academic Misconduct

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

NMSU's academic-integrity procedures are set out in two companion regulations, ARP 5.10 (definitions, roles and general process) and ARP 5.11 (the procedural steps). Both carry the same policy metadata (no on-page publication date beyond "Last Updated: 01/05/2018"; retrieved Sep 24, 2026). On who may investigate and how a student is notified, ARP 5.11 states:

On the evidentiary standard, ARP 5.11 states: "Clear and Convincing Evidence must be found to conclude that a violation of academic integrity has occurred." ARP 5.10 defines that standard as requiring evidence "more than a 'Preponderance of the Evidence' and less than 'Beyond a Reasonable Doubt'." It separately defines Preponderance of the Evidence — the standard many other institutions use — without adopting it. On sanctions, ARP 5.10 sets two tiers: Level I sanctions (for first-time, less serious undergraduate violations) are limited to a verbal warning, redoing an assignment, a failing grade on the assignment, or a one-letter-grade course reduction; Level II sanctions (for graduate students on any violation, and for repeat or more serious undergraduate violations) may include a written reprimand, a failing course grade, disciplinary probation, suspension or dismissal, or the transcript notation quoted above.

On appeal, ARP 5.11 states: "A student or the AI Investigator may request a final review by the Office of the provost and chief academic officer in matters involving Level II Sanctions by submitting a request for final review […] within 5 Days after receipt of the decision." The provost's office then "will review the hearing record and issue a written final decision […] within 20 Days after the date of receipt of the hearing record," absent a stated extension. Level I sanctions are not eligible for this review; ARP 5.11 states the Hearing Panel's decision "is final" for those. On hearings, ARP 5.11 also states: "The Hearing Panel and the Academic Conduct Officer must coordinate to ensure that the Evidence presented by all parties is preserved for the record, by audio or other method of recording." NMSU's Student Conduct FAQs page, which addresses both academic and non-academic conduct matters handled by the same office, adds — instructor-facing language aside, this answer describes what a student experiences — (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Sep 24, 2026):

Source: Student Conduct FAQs — Student Conduct and Community Standards. Neither ARP 5.10 nor ARP 5.11 nor the FAQs page states whether a student may independently record a meeting; the "Evidence" the regulations describe as recorded is the university's own hearing record. Disclosure of a finding to a graduate school, employer or licensing board is not stated in the sources reviewed — ARP 5.10, ARP 5.11, and the Student Conduct and Community Standards pages were searched for this. 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

2026-09-24 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the nmsu.edu pages linked beside them. ARP 5.10 and ARP 5.11 display "Last Updated: 01/05/2018" as their only on-page date; no other source carried a displayed publication date. Detection-inventory sweep performed: named-vendor sweep of nmsu.edu (Turnitin, Turnitin AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep of Academic Technology's short-course and tools pages, the library's plagiarism guide, syllabus-resource pages, and ARP 5.10/5.11 themselves. Turnitin is documented for originality/plagiarism checking and Draft Coach; Respondus appears only as a listed academic-technology tool, with no first-party page describing its function. No first-party page states whether Turnitin's AI-writing detection component is enabled, disabled, or addressed at all — recorded as an absence at that sweep rather than a disqualifying finding, since a detector (Turnitin, for originality/plagiarism) is documented as deployed. Ombuds/advocacy sweep: no office titled ombuds or ombudsperson was found on nmsu.edu. Student Assistance Services (sas.nmsu.edu), part of the Office of the Dean of Students, lists "academic concerns," "appeal and grievance questions," and general support among the reasons students contact it, but its own page does not name academic integrity or academic misconduct allegations specifically, and it sits inside the same Office of the Dean of Students that administers Student Conduct & Community Standards; it is not recorded here as an eligible ombuds/advocacy office on that basis. Paraphrase-pending: none. Deliberate omission: the general Student Conduct FAQ's appeal answer (Notice of Appeal to the dean of students, grounds including procedural error) describes the university's non-academic Student Social Code of Conduct appeal path; it was not used for the academic-integrity appeal question above, which instead quotes ARP 5.11's provost final-review provision specific to Level II academic sanctions, to avoid conflating the two processes. The FAQ's support-person answer was used because ARP 5.10's own Student Advisor definition, which is scoped to academic integrity, states the same "must not actively advocate" limitation, so the two sources corroborate rather than conflict. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-24).

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