Salisbury University.

What Salisbury's Student Academic Misconduct Policy says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

A student may "seek the support of an advisor for assistance in the preparation of a case before the APC," named at least one day before any hearing; the advisor's role at the hearing is passive and may not "give opening or closing statements, present documents, question witnesses." The policy does not address a support person, counsel for the student, or recording; it states only that the Academic Policies Committee chair "may seek the advice of legal counsel." — Student Academic Misconduct Policy · Office of Academic Affairs

What follows on the record

"There will be no designation on the transcript that the 'F' is due to academic misconduct," unless the Academic Policies Committee decides a violation is egregious enough to document. Case documentation is held "for five (5) years" when no appeal is filed, and external reporting of a finding is restricted "to one calendar year from the date of the report," a limit that "cannot… overturn any release of information required by federal law or subpoena." — Student Academic Misconduct Policy · Office of Academic Affairs

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

The Student Academic Misconduct Policy (retrieved Oct 18, 2026; no on-page revision date shown) is instructor-initiated: "[a]ny University employee in an instructional relationship with a student may file an Academic Misconduct Incident Report," while a student who learns of misconduct must report it to a faculty member rather than file directly. The reporting person "will advise the student in person or via email of the accusation within ten (10) working days of discovering the misconduct and shall allow the student an opportunity, within ten (10) working days, to respond to the charge, in writing, before a sanction is determined"; if misconduct is found, the reporting person submits the Incident Report and supporting materials to the Office of Academic Affairs "within 10 (ten) working days of the student's response," with a copy to the student. Standards of proof are stated twice and are not identical: the Academic Policies Committee (APC) is to consider evidence "as a reasonable person would consider reliable in making important decisions," while a hearing chair's decision is "based on a preponderance of the evidence" — both reproduced as published rather than reconciled.

Sanctions at the course level are the instructor's discretion: a written warning, a reduced grade on the work, an "F" on the work, an "F" in the course with removal from the course, "or other sanction at the discretion of the faculty member." For repeat offenses, the APC may impose sanctions "up to and including suspension or expulsion from the University." Appeal of a faculty-imposed sanction alone ends with the APC, whose decision "is final"; a student "will have five (5) working days to file a written appeal of the finding to the Office of Academic Affairs" after the emailed finding, the reporting person then has "an opportunity to respond in writing to the student's appeal, within five (5) working days," and the APC "will issue a written decision on the student appeal within five (5) working days of the APC's decision" or, after a hearing, "[w]ithin five working days of the hearing." For APC sanctions reaching suspension, expulsion, or program dismissal, "[w]ritten appeals to the Provost must be filed within ten (10) working days," and the Provost's decision "is final and binding on all parties." Under Board of Regents policy, "students expelled or suspended for reasons of academic dishonesty by any institution in the University System of Maryland shall not be admissible to any other System institution if expelled, or during any period of suspension." Source: Student Academic Misconduct Policy. 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

2026-10-18 — Page created. Priority A tranche 4, entry 274. Cold build (scheduled, unattended); no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts.json research to reuse. Third entry in this pass's batch. All quotations retrieved this date; none of the six sources carried an on-page revision date beyond the site's standing "© 2026 Salisbury University" copyright line. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI writing detector 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 by the Course-Related Policies and Resources page's Turnitin syllabus statement ("contracts with Turnitin for plagiarism detection and deterrence") and by a dedicated Turnitin support page, both describing plagiarism/originality checking only; neither page, nor the Syllabus AI Statements guidance, names an AI-writing detection feature. DETECTOR RELIANCE: no detector is documented, so no evidentiary-weight statement or process-based verification method could be carried into the status line; both are moot at this scope rather than none-published against a deployed tool. CATEGORY SWEEP: the Syllabus AI Statements page's three-tier AI Inclusive/AI Conditional/AI Restrictive framework addresses instructor-set student-use rules, not detection, and states that "instructors in the extent to which they permit the use of AI in assignments will also vary." DISQUALIFICATION CHECK: this is an empty inventory rather than a disabling statement — nothing swept states an AI-text detector was enabled and withdrawn, or is recommended against; not disqualified. PROCESS, FROM THE STUDENT ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT POLICY: instructor-initiated reporting (ten (10) working days to notify the student, ten (10) more for a written student response, ten (10) more to submit the Incident Report to the Office of Academic Affairs); two non-identical evidentiary formulations, reproduced as published — the Academic Policies Committee's "reasonable person" reliability standard for its review generally, and a hearing chair's explicit "preponderance of the evidence" standard; course-level sanctions at instructor discretion through course failure with removal, and APC sanctions up to suspension or expulsion for repeat offenses; a two-stage student appeal (five (5) working days to the Office of Academic Affairs, a further Provost appeal within ten (10) working days for suspension/expulsion/program-dismissal sanctions, final and binding). ACCOMPANIMENT: a passive-role advisor only, named at least one day ahead; no support person or counsel addressed for the student; recording not addressed in either direction. RECORDS: no transcript designation for an "F" grade absent an APC egregiousness finding; five-year retention absent an appeal; external disclosure capped at one calendar year from the report date, subject to legally compelled release; a University System of Maryland cross-institution readmission bar during a suspension or expulsion period. OFFICE: Office of Academic Affairs (Office of the Provost), Holloway Hall Room 100, 410-543-6020, provost@salisbury.edu, confirmed on the office's own contacts page. OMBUDS: Ombuds Services, within the Office of General Counsel, serves "faculty, staff, and undergraduate and graduate students," and is described in the institution's own words as confidential, independent of "all regular chains of authority," and impartial ("does not take sides or advocate any particular position"); its own page notes its content was adapted from the University of Maryland, College Park's Ombuds Services page, and that adaptation is recorded here rather than treated as Salisbury's original description. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-18).

2026-10-18 — 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: salisbury.edu/administration/academic-affairs — Office Contacts → https://web.archive.org/web/20261018141825/https://salisbury.edu/administration/academic-affairs/office-contacts.aspx; Course-Related Policies and Resources — Office of Academic Affairs → https://web.archive.org/web/20261018142030/https://www.salisbury.edu/administration/academic-affairs/course-related-policies-and-resources.aspx; Syllabus AI Statements — Instructional Design & Delivery → https://web.archive.org/web/20261018142204/https://www.salisbury.edu/administration/academic-affairs/instructional-design-delivery/articles/syllabus-ai-statements.aspx; Turnitin Point Plagiarism Prevention — Instructional Design & Delivery → https://web.archive.org/web/20261018142327/https://www.salisbury.edu/administration/academic-affairs/instructional-design-delivery/instructional-software/turnitin-point-plagiarism-prevention.aspx; Office of Academic Affairs → https://web.archive.org/web/20261018142446/https://www.salisbury.edu/administration/academic-affairs/misconduct-policy.aspx; salisbury.edu — Office of General Counsel → https://web.archive.org/web/20261018142608/https://www.salisbury.edu/administration/general-counsel/ombuds-services.aspx.

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