University of Phoenix.

What UOPX's own documents say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

Not stated in the sources reviewed, for the process that actually governs an academic-integrity or AI-misconduct referral. The Student Code of Conduct's Procedure for Processing Alleged Violations (Online Academic Catalog, Volume 60) describes an entirely written process — investigation, a Warning or a Charge Letter, a written Student Response, a Decision, and a written appeal to a Student Discipline Review Committee — and names no meeting or hearing at any stage, so it states no provision either allowing or barring an advisor, support person, or note-taker, and does not address recording. Two adjacent, differently scoped catalog processes do state a bar on representation explicitly: the Supplemental & Professional Standards process for students in licensure-track programs (Nursing, Public Health, and similar Colleges) states "Students are not permitted to have representation by an attorney or any other third party at any time during the process," and the Doctoral Demeanor Referral Process for doctoral students' professionalism standards states the identical sentence. Neither is the Student Code of Conduct process that governs the AI-detection referral described in section 01; each governs its own, narrower population and behavior. · Online Academic Catalog, Volume 60 (PDF)

What follows on the record

Not fully stated in the sources reviewed. The catalog's Student Code of Conduct defines Suspension to include a records hold: "During the period of suspension, there is a hold on the student's University records which may prevent the student from obtaining transcripts, verifications, or a degree from the University." A narrow, crime-specific disclosure provision is stated for any Student Code of Conduct decision: "In accordance with the requirements under the Higher Education Opportunity Act (HEOA), upon written request, the University will disclose to an alleged victim of a crime of violence, or a non-forcible sex offense, the results of any disciplinary hearing conducted by the institution against the student(s) who is/are the alleged perpetrator(s) of the crime or offense." No source located in this review states a transcript notation for an academic-integrity or AI-misconduct finding, a retention period for the disciplinary file, or disclosure of a finding to graduate programs, employers, or licensing boards; this is stated as an absence at the scope searched — the current Online Academic Catalog's Student Code of Conduct, Student Complaints, and FERPA sections — not a claim no such provision exists anywhere at UOPX. · Online Academic Catalog, Volume 60 (PDF)

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

Per the Student Code of Conduct's Procedure for Processing Alleged Violations (Online Academic Catalog, Volume 60, 2026-2027 edition; retrieved Sep 2, 2026): on receipt of information that a student may be in violation, "Conduct Resolutions will evaluate the information to determine an appropriate course of action. Alleged violations will be investigated in a prompt, thorough, and impartial manner. Conduct Resolutions acts as the fact-finder and will explore information relevant to the allegation." Following that investigation, "if it is more likely than not that a violation has occurred, the student will be notified of one of the following": a Warning ("not appealable and no response from the student is required") or a Charge — "notice to the student that their alleged actions are in violation of the University's Student Code of Conduct and subject to the disciplinary process. The student is provided the opportunity to respond to the charge(s)." A student charged has "ten (10) calendar days from the date of the Charge Letter to submit a written response to the University," and if no response is received "the case will proceed without the student's input." Findings are made on a stated evidentiary standard: "Finding a student in violation of University policy and subject to sanctions must be supported by a preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely than not that a violation occurred." Sanctions "may include, but are not limited to, an assigned workshop or tutorial, a failing course grade, suspension, expulsion, or rescission of a conferred credential," and "[t]he decision and sanction(s) will be communicated in writing to the student."

Appeal rights are stated narrowly and by grounds: "Appeals must be requested in writing within ten (10) calendar days from the date of the decision letter. Appeals will only be accepted for review on one or more of the following grounds: i. The student can provide new evidence, which was unavailable at the time of the initial response, that could substantially impact the original finding. ii. University procedures were not followed. iii. The student was sanctioned with expulsion." A fourth ground covers the same outcome named in the Sanctions quotation above — the catalog's Appeals section names it too, spelling the word differently there than the Sanctions section does two pages earlier ("recission" against "rescission," University of Phoenix's own inconsistency, preserved rather than corrected). Where a student meets one of the stated grounds, the Discipline Review Committee's own name and role are given first-party: "Student Discipline Review Committee (SDRC) will be convened to hear the appeal," and it "is comprised of three (3) University representatives who will make a determination whether the original decision will be upheld, amended or reversed," and "[t]he SDRC's decision on the matter is final and no further appeals will be allowed." A sanction of expulsion or rescission "automatically" meets the grounds for appeal. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-02 — Page created. Detection-inventory sweep run first: named-vendor sweep across phoenix.edu, multimedia.phoenix.edu, research.phoenix.edu, library.phoenix.edu, and both governing policy documents found no reference to Turnitin, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, or Packback, and no reference to Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, or Examity; Grammarly appears only as a general writing-assistance recommendation, distinct from Grammarly Authorship, which was not found. Category sweep: LMS confirmed as Blackboard Ultra with SafeAssign as its built-in similarity checker; no separate proctoring/exam-integrity tool found; the Doctoral Demeanor sections govern doctoral professionalism and dissertation quality but name no separate plagiarism or AI-detection tool for that pipeline. Disqualification check run on the completed inventory: NOT a disqualification — SafeAssign is actively required for all coursework per the current Academic Policies & Procedures document, and the current (2026-2027) Online Academic Catalog's Student Code of Conduct affirmatively authorizes Conduct Resolutions to use "reliable means of AI detection" producing a likelihood score for suspected generative-AI misconduct referred for formal discipline; nothing found disabled or recommended against. Captured first-party this date: the Academic Policies & Procedures PDF (fetched and extracted via pdftotext, cross-checked against the rendered page), the Online Academic Catalog Volume 60 PDF (612 pages; fetched and extracted via pdftotext; Artificial Intelligence, Student Code of Conduct, Supplemental & Professional Standards, and Doctoral Demeanor sections read in full), the 2023 media-center announcement, the "Generative AI in higher education" page's "Our philosophy" statement, and the Filing a Complaint page's Resolution Services — Conduct Resolutions contact block (address, phone, and email also independently confirmed inside the catalog's Acceptable Computer Use section). A PDF titled "Student Code of Conduct" was found still live at assets.phoenix.edu but is file-dated Jul 8, 2010 and textually stamped 2009-2010 — sixteen years stale and describing a disciplinary structure (a Campus Committee, teleconference addresses, no AI provisions) the current catalog has replaced; it is recorded in the source map as superseded and was not quoted as current practice. No ombuds or student-advocacy office was located on any UOPX page in this review; the search covered phoenix.edu and the full text of the current catalog for the terms ombuds, ombudsperson, student advocate, and student advocacy, and found none. Section 02's accompany row required distinguishing three separate catalog processes with different scopes and different rules on representation — the general Student Code of Conduct process (no meeting/hearing described, no representation provision either way), the Supplemental & Professional Standards process (licensure-track students only, explicit bar on attorneys/third parties), and the Doctoral Demeanor Referral Process (doctoral students only, identical explicit bar) — a scope trap this review did not resolve by assuming the two narrower processes' rule applies to the general one. Nothing on this page is paraphrase-pending; every quotation was fetched directly from a PDF or an HTML page, with no WAF, Cloudflare challenge, or login wall encountered on any source used — one exception noted below. The catalog's Appeals section spells "recission" with one "s" where its own Sanctions section two pages earlier spells "rescission" correctly; both spellings are preserved exactly as the institution wrote them rather than normalized to agree with each other. Packet capture and fidelity check run this date: propose-recipe.py and capture.py fetched all six linked sources directly, nothing supplied manually. check-fidelity.py against tools/packets/phoenix-packet.txt found 23 initial failures; 15 were this session's own errors and were fixed — six lowercased list items bracket-marked as the catalog capitalizes them ("[i]dentifying," "[r]eviewing," "[a]sking," "[s]ubmitting," "[n]ot evaluating," "[p]resenting," plus "[t]he decision," "[t]he SDRC's decision," and "[e]ffective"), a fabricated "[2023]" interpolation removed from the media-center quotation, the "recission"/"rescission" spelling corrected to match each section, and one quotation ("Appropriate use still requires…") converted to paraphrase after its packet text proved to have lost the spaces between several words ("AItoolsor," "howthey") under this repo's -raw PDF extraction — confirmed, by extracting the same PDF pages with plain pdftotext's default (non-raw) mode, to read with normal spacing in the source itself. The remaining 8 failures are a single, traced tooling limitation, not inaccurate quotations: University of Phoenix's Online Academic Catalog is typeset with justified, column-hyphenated text, and both this repo's pdftotext-raw and pdftotext-layout extractors (capture.py's only PDF options besides the unavailable pdfplumber) preserve that hyphen at the line break rather than rejoining the word — so the packet keeps the print line-break hyphen inside seven words the catalog itself sets as one continuous word each — detection, disciplinary, Student, inappropriately, Education, thorough, and suspension all fall at a column edge somewhere across the passages this page quotes. Checked directly against plain pdftotext's default reading-order extraction of the same PDF, which does not hyphenate at line wraps and confirms every one of these words reads as continuous text in the source; capture.py's own comments document this as a deliberate, known limitation of the wrap-join filter, which cannot safely tell a justified line-wrap hyphen from a genuine hyphenated compound apart. No tooling was modified to route around this. Phoenix is left OUT of tools/fidelity-gate.txt this session as a result — every one of the 8 remaining failures traces to this one documented cause, named here for whoever next touches capture.py's hyphen handling or adds a non-raw PDF extractor option. University of Phoenix is a private, for-profit institution: this page quotes brief excerpts and links originals; it republishes nothing in full. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-03). Internet Archive captures: to be added.

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 — Nightly QC pass (gw-institution-review, scheduled, unattended): all 6 recipe sources re-captured via tools/capture.py and mechanically re-verified against this page. Two failures remain, matching the accepted-tradeoff digest 43d5e3c5938d2bc5 (tools/fidelity-accepted.txt) exactly — the Catalog's typesetter/author-hyphen extraction artifact on source 3. No new or unexplained failure. No human review is claimed for this entry. Sources 1, 4 and 5 returned marginally less text than the prior capture (whitespace-collapsed); every quotation, contact fact and stated absence this page cites still traces to the fresh capture.

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