Southeastern Louisiana University.

Detection status: No AI-text detector confirmed deployed; Southeastern's Academic Integrity Policy and the Provost's current semester memo both delegate AI-use rules to the course syllabus, and no Southeastern page names an AI-writing detector
Office in these sources: Office of Student Advocacy and Accountability · Mims Hall, Room 207, Hammond, LA 70402 · 985-549-2213 · osaa@southeastern.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: Dean of Students, who Southeastern names as "the University's official Student Ombuds," serving as a resource for "any complaint, grievance, appeal that may be academic or non-academic in nature" · Student Union, Room 1301, Hammond, LA 70402 · 985-549-3792 · deanofstudents@southeastern.edu · southeastern.edu — Dean of Students
Sources last checked: Sep 22, 2026

Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.

Southeastern Louisiana University's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case — Southeastern's own policy requires every course syllabus to state its own rule on AI tools, so course-level rules may also apply. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

No AI-text detector confirmed in institutional use at Southeastern

A named-vendor sweep (Turnitin/SimCheck/Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep of the Academic Integrity Policy, the Provost's semester memo, the Center for Faculty Excellence's AI guidance, and Southeastern's Canvas/IT help pages found no institutionally deployed or named AI-text detector anywhere.

The Academic Integrity Policy (effective Jan 1, 2025; date of revision Fall 2024; retrieved as PDF Sep 22, 2026) states, under "Statement on the Use of Technology Developments and Tools (e.g., Artificial Intelligence)":

"Regarding developing technologies and tools - such as Artificial Intelligence - faculty members may enact specific policies in their courses, in conformity with this policy and any departmental policies. As a specific example, faculty members should address students' use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) software or applications in their courses. These course-specific policies must be stated in the course syllabus and posted in the University's LMS."

Source: Academic Integrity Policy (PDF), via its landing page. The Provost's Fall 2026 Semester Informational Memo (dated Aug 10, 2026; retrieved Sep 22, 2026) restates the same statement almost verbatim but with one word changed — where the policy says faculty "may enact" course-specific AI policies, the memo says faculty "are required to enact" them:

"Statement on the Use of Technology Developments and Tools (e.g., Artificial Intelligence) Regarding developing technologies and tools – such as Artificial Intelligence – faculty members are required to enact specific policies in their courses, in conformity with this policy and any departmental policies. […] (Source: Southeastern Academic Integrity Policy) *Examples of (five) syllabus statements are found at the bottom of 'The Use of Generative AI Tools: A Guide for Faculty'."

Source: Fall 2026 Semester Informational Memo — Office of the Provost. Neither document names an AI-writing detector; both describe a syllabus-level faculty choice, not a campus-wide detection tool.

The memo's own link to "The Use of Generative AI Tools: A Guide for Faculty" (Center for Faculty Excellence) returns a 404 on Southeastern's live site as of this review — a dead link inside the institution's own current, dated memo. Because the live page could not be verified first-party, it was captured instead through a Jun 8, 2026 Internet Archive snapshot (transport: Internet Archive, in place of a direct fetch of the dead live URL). The snapshot discusses generative-AI tools generally (ChatGPT and similar) and states, of its short list of example tools:

"Southeastern does not endorse or promote the use of any of these tools."

Source: Internet Archive capture, Jun 8, 2026, of "The Use of Generative AI Tools: A Guide for Faculty". It names no AI-writing detector of any kind.

Southeastern's Canvas help pages confirm Respondus LockDown Browser as a proctoring tool for quizzes and exams ("SLU Canvas and using Respondus Lockdown Browser to take quizzes or exams," Canvas — How Do I?, retrieved Sep 22, 2026) — exam-integrity proctoring, not AI-text detection. A handful of individual faculty course pages on the www2.southeastern.edu legacy domain, dated 2004–2011, reference Turnitin (in one case, the vendor's SimCheck product) for plagiarism-similarity checking in specific courses; these predate AI-writing detection as a product category, are individual faculty pages rather than institutional statements, and are not evidence of any current, campus-wide detector.

This is an empty AI-text-detector inventory at the scope searched above, not a documented deactivation: no Southeastern page states that a detector was ever enabled, purchased, or subsequently disabled, and none names one at all.

02Published process

What Southeastern's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: "Advisor: An individual chosen by the student to provide support and guidance throughout the academic integrity process. The Advisor may be a faculty or staff member, student, or another representative of the student. The Advisor is not permitted to participate directly or speak for the student." Recording is not addressed in the Academic Integrity Policy; the separate Student Code of Conduct, which governs only if a case escalates to a disciplinary proceeding, states recording by participants "is strictly prohibited," while the University itself retains an audio or video recording of any disciplinary hearing. — Academic Integrity Policy, Definitions (effective Jan 1, 2025; retrieved Sep 22, 2026) · Academic Integrity Policy (PDF)
What follows on the record: For the ordinary academic-action process: "A written report […] of the action taken must be filed with the Department Head and Dean of the course involved. […] Records are kept on file at the Office of Student Advocacy and Accountability for seven (7) years." No transcript notation is stated for a grade-based academic action. If a case escalates to a Student Code of Conduct disciplinary sanction, the Code (revised Aug 13, 2026) states a transcript notation follows suspension or expulsion — "Student is ineligible to enroll" or "Student is eligible to return (semester)(year)" — and that disciplinary records are FERPA-protected and retained seven years, except that "[r]ecords involving sanctions that result in separation from the University are maintained indefinitely." — Academic Integrity Policy (PDF) and Student Code of Conduct

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

The Academic Integrity Policy (effective Jan 1, 2025; date of revision Fall 2024; retrieved as PDF Sep 22, 2026) sets a single evidentiary standard for the initial academic-action determination:

"The standard of information in academic integrity cases is by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the evidence presented must be highly and substantially more probable to be true than not, or the evidence must instantly tilt the scales in the affirmative when weighed against the evidence in opposition." "Within ten (10) business days of discovering the alleged violation, the faculty member will notify the student of the following: a. All alleged charges in writing; b. All supporting information/documents of alleged charges; c. The Academic Integrity Policy; d. The student's right to appeal […] and e. The student's right to schedule a meeting with the faculty member at an agreeable date and time for an Academic Integrity Conference. No penalty will be imposed until the student has been informed of the charge and given ten (10) business days to respond and present a defense." "If the student agrees that a violation has occurred, or if there is no response from the student, a lower grade or an 'F' may be assigned to the test or assignment or, in the case of a serious violation, to the entire course. This decision is at the instructor's discretion. Agreement or no response cannot be appealed." "The student will appeal first to the Department Head and then the Dean of the course involved. The Dean's decision is final." Appeals to the Department Head are due "[w]ithin ten (10) business days of receiving the faculty member's decision," and a further appeal to the Dean is due within ten (10) business days of the Department Head's decision. "Disciplinary actions may be imposed in addition to academic actions for particularly egregious or repeated acts of academic dishonesty. […] [A] formal complaint of academic integrity violations must be filed within thirty (30) business days after the procedures outlined in this policy have been followed," referring the matter into the separate Student Code of Conduct disciplinary process.

Source: Academic Integrity Policy (PDF), via its landing page. Appeal grounds are limited to four stated criteria — whether the process was conducted fairly and without bias; whether new or contradictory evidence exists, or the student was denied due process; whether new information not known at the time should be considered; and whether the action imposed was disproportionate to the violation. 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.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
Academic Integrity Policy (PDF; effective Jan 1, 2025, date of revision Fall 2024)	southeastern.edu/wp-content/uploads/policies/academic_integrity.pdf
Academic Integrity Policy (landing page)	southeastern.edu/resources/policies/policy_detail/acad_integrity/
Fall 2026 Semester Informational Memo — Office of the Provost (dated Aug 10, 2026)	southeastern.edu/provost/semester-informational-memo/
Student Code of Conduct, 2026–2027 (revised Aug 13, 2026)	southeastern.edu/admin/osaa/know_the_code/
Canvas — How Do I? (Respondus LockDown Browser)	southeastern.edu/resources/howdoi/canvas/
"The Use of Generative AI Tools: A Guide for Faculty" (Center for Faculty Excellence) — live URL southeastern.edu/admin/cfe/artifical_intelligence/ returns 404 as of Sep 22, 2026; captured via Internet Archive instead	web.archive.org capture, Jun 8, 2026
Office of Student Advocacy and Accountability	Mims Hall, Room 207, SLU Box 10390, Hammond, LA 70402 · 985-549-2213 · osaa@southeastern.edu (from the office's own page, retrieved Sep 22, 2026) — southeastern.edu/admin/osaa/
Dean of Students / Student Ombuds	Student Union, Room 1301, Hammond, LA 70402 · 985-549-3792 · deanofstudents@southeastern.edu (from the office's own page, retrieved Sep 22, 2026) — southeastern.edu/admin/stu_dev/

Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.

04Change log

Revision history of this page

2026-09-22 — Page created by an automated build pass; no human review is claimed for this entry. First-party material captured this date from southeastern.edu: the Academic Integrity Policy (PDF, effective Jan 1, 2025, date of revision Fall 2024, fetched directly after its landing page proved to render its body only through a client-side document viewer); the Provost's Fall 2026 Semester Informational Memo (dated Aug 10, 2026, read in a browser); the Student Code of Conduct, 2026–2027 (revised Aug 13, 2026, a single long client-rendered page read in a browser); the Office of Student Advocacy and Accountability and Dean of Students contact pages; and the Canvas — How Do I? help page. Named-vendor and category sweeps both came back empty of any institutionally deployed or even named AI-text detector. LIMITATION AND TRANSPORT NOTE: the Center for Faculty Excellence's "The Use of Generative AI Tools: A Guide for Faculty," which the Aug 10, 2026 Provost memo itself links to and names as the source of its example syllabus statements, returns a 404 on the live site — a dead link inside the institution's own current, dated memo, confirmed by direct navigation and by clicking the memo's own link. Because the live URL could not be fetched, it was captured instead through a Jun 8, 2026 Internet Archive snapshot (transport recorded on the page); the snapshot names no AI-writing detector. A handful of individual faculty syllabus pages on the legacy www2.southeastern.edu domain, dated 2004–2011, reference Turnitin (one names its SimCheck product) for plagiarism-similarity checking; these were found in the sweep, predate AI-writing detection as a product category, and are not institutional statements, so they are not treated as evidence of a current detector. Respondus LockDown Browser is confirmed for exam proctoring, not AI-text detection. Transcript-notation and recording findings in section 02 are drawn from the Student Code of Conduct's disciplinary provisions, which govern only if a case escalates beyond the Academic Integrity Policy's own academic-action process; that scope distinction is stated on the page. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Internet Archive captures of the live, quotable sources are pending — to be requested by a later capture pass. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-22).

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