Northern Michigan University.

What the NMU Student Handbook says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"The respondent(s) and complainant(s) shall be entitled to be accompanied by a support person of their choice; a support person shall be a member of the faculty, staff, or student body of the University. A support person shall not be a licensed or a practicing attorney." An attorney may attend only when "criminal charges are pending against the student," and then only in a role that is "limited and passive." Conduct-board hearings carry "a single verbatim record, such as an audio recording"; deliberations are not recorded. — NMU Student Code · NMU Student Handbook

What follows on the record

Not stated in the sources reviewed: the Student Handbook does not use the word "transcript" anywhere in its academic-dishonesty or Student Code sections. What it does state: "All Incident Reports/cases have an electronic record in a secure and access restricted database," and a faculty member handling a case informally "has the option to request the Dean of Students Office to keep a record of academic dishonesty on file informally or to formally charge the student with a violation of the Student Code." — NMU Student Code · NMU Student Handbook

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

The Student Handbook splits academic dishonesty into two linked tracks. Under Section 1.2.3, Academic Dishonesty, a faculty member with "reasonable grounds to suspect a student of academic dishonesty" must inform the student "within fourteen (14) calendar days," give the student "an opportunity to respond," and then decide responsibility; the faculty member's own penalty is capped at a grade of "F" for the course. The faculty member "has the option to request the Dean of Students Office to keep a record... on file informally or to formally charge the student with a violation of the Student Code" — which moves the matter to the formal process below. Section 2.3.1, Academic Dishonesty, in the Student Code defines plagiarism to include "the use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) that has not been instructor approved," alongside cheating, complicity, falsification, unauthorized possession, and multiple submission.

Where a case is formally charged, Section 2.4 governs. The respondent gets written notice of "one or more sections of the Student Code alleged to have been violated," and, for an administrative hearing, notice "48 hours prior," which the respondent "may voluntarily waive." The respondent may accept responsibility, drawing a sanction from the administrator, or deny or stand silent, which refers the case to a conduct board, whose "standard of proof is preponderance of the evidence" — "more likely than not" that the Student Code was violated. Sanctions run from warning or disciplinary probation through suspension, expulsion, and revocation or withholding of a degree ("[b]eing a degree holding alumna is sufficient association with the University" for revocation after graduation). A written appeal "must be submitted to the Dean of Students or their designee within 48 hours after the sanction is imposed," on one of three stated bases — procedure, fact, or leniency — with a decision due "within ten business days" of receipt, from the Associate Provost (leniency) or a three-member appeal committee (procedure or fact). Source: NMU Student Handbook, Parts 1 and 2 (Part 1 "revised and approved... December 15, 2023"; Part 2 "revised and approved... September 20, 2024"; retrieved Oct 17, 2026). 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.

Revision history of this page

2026-10-17 — Page created. Priority A tranche 4, entry 267. Cold build (no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts research). All quotations retrieved this date. The CTL's "Turnitin — Interpret Results" guide carries its own "Last Updated: 5/31/2024"; the Student Handbook states Part 1 was "revised and approved... December 15, 2023" and Part 2 "revised and approved... September 20, 2024." Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI Writing comparison specifically, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) found only Turnitin, confirmed first-party via the CTL guide above; no other vendor named anywhere reached. Category sweep covered the CTL Resource Library (lists Turnitin under Instructional Technology, titled "Plagiarism Detection," linking the guide used here), the AI Literacy Initiative's faculty and staff pages (including the page addressing academic integrity and plagiarism directly, which discusses syllabus statements and ethics but recommends neither for nor against detection), and Olson Library's "Artificial Intelligence and Library Research" guide (covers AI research tools, not detection, and points back to the CTL's page for detection guidance). DISQUALIFICATION CHECK: nothing located recommends against Turnitin or its AI Writing comparison, and nothing states either has been disabled or withdrawn; not disqualified. PROCESS-VERIFICATION SWEEP: the same pages, plus one additional site search for draft-review, authorship-interview, or similar process-based language, found nothing; recorded as none-published at this scope. TRANSPORT NOTE: the Turnitin — Interpret Results guide is a Google Doc; its normal docs.google.com editor view displays a "Sign in" / "Request edit access" banner to a visiting account, but the document's own content renders beneath that banner without authentication and was read directly, by browser (its text is canvas-rendered, not present in the page's DOM, so it was read from rendered screenshots page by page rather than extracted as text) — not supplied from elsewhere, and not the same pattern as the AUTHENTICATION-GATED ServiceNow/Freshservice sources recorded elsewhere in this collection (Auburn, Georgia Tech, UNI, EWU), where the source itself refuses an unauthenticated reader. PROCESS drawn from NMU Student Handbook Sections 1.2.3, 2.3.1, 2.4, 2.5.7, 2.6, and 2.7: the fourteen-day faculty-level notice, the Section 2.3.1 Artificial Intelligence clause within plagiarism, the 48-hour administrative-hearing notice, the preponderance standard, the sanctions range through revocation/withholding of a degree, and the 48-hour appeal-letter deadline with three stated bases are all quoted directly. RECORD ROW: no "transcript" language exists anywhere in the handbook's academic-dishonesty or Student Code sections, searched directly; the only record-keeping language found is the electronic-database statement in Section 2.4.2 and the informal-file option in Section 1.2.3, both quoted. OMBUDS/ADVOCACY SEARCH ("ombuds," "ombudsperson," "student advocacy," "dean of students advocacy," run against nmu.edu and via Google site search): found no dedicated office; the Dean of Students Office's own contact page lists its supervised programs (Disability Student Services, First Generation Student Services, NMU Food Pantry, Parent Program, Student Conduct Program, Student Support Services, Veteran Services) and none is titled or described as an ombuds or general student-advocacy office, so the docket states the absence rather than inferring one. OFFICE: Dean of Students Office contact page gives phone, fax, email, and location directly; no separate academic-integrity-specific office or contact is published, so the Dean of Students Office (which the Student Code names as the administrator of the Student Conduct Program) is used. Deliberately not used as deployment evidence: the CTL's "Academic Dishonesty Using Generative AI" page, which explains what AI classifiers are in general and names Turnitin's tool and Originality.AI only as illustrative examples of the category, not as a statement that NMU has deployed either beyond what the Interpret Results guide already confirms for Turnitin. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-17).

2026-10-17 — Internet Archive captures requested this date by an automated capture pass; 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: Turnitin — Interpret Results → https://web.archive.org/web/20261017121225/https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AIBnlrPEnycdje2BiIuABiaA1UX2vS3xY0UYw6WIQj0/edit?usp=drive_link; nmu.edu/ai-literacy-initiative/faculty-academic-integrity-and-plagiarism → https://web.archive.org/web/20261017121320/https://nmu.edu/ai-literacy-initiative/faculty-academic-integrity-and-plagiarism; nmu.edu/ctl/academic-dishonesty-using-generative-ai → https://web.archive.org/web/20261017121407/https://nmu.edu/ctl/academic-dishonesty-using-generative-ai; Resource Library → https://web.archive.org/web/20261017121445/https://nmu.edu/ctl/resource-library; nmu.edu/dso/contact-us → https://web.archive.org/web/20261017121524/https://nmu.edu/dso/contact-us; NMU Student Handbook → https://web.archive.org/web/20261017121639/https://nmu.edu/policies/1070.

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