Stephen F. Austin State University.
- Detection status
- SFA's own Center for Teaching and Learning names Turnitin's AI-detection tools, GPTZero and Copyleaks among tools that "exist to detect the use of generative AI," with Turnitin "integrated into Brightspace's Dropbox tool"; the same page cautions that accuracy "varies considerably" and use "could result in false positives"
- Office in these sources
- Dean of Students Office · Baker Pattillo Student Center, Room 3.105 · 936-468-7249 · dos@sfasu.edu
- Ombuds or advocacy office
- None located on the institution's own pages in this review.
- Sources last checked
- Oct 1, 2026
Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.
SFA'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 — course syllabi vary in their own AI rules, and SFA's own guidance says so. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.
AI-detection tools are named, with a reliability caution, not confirmed as graded-assignment policy
SFA's Center for Teaching and Learning, in its generative-AI faculty resources (page undated; retrieved Oct 1, 2026), states:
Source: Generative AI Resources — Center for Teaching and Learning. This page confirms Turnitin is integrated into Brightspace's Dropbox (assignment-submission) tool and names AI-detection capability within it, alongside GPTZero and Copyleaks, as tools that exist — it does not separately state whether Turnitin's AI-writing feature specifically is turned on for grading use at SFA, as distinct from being named and described with its limitations. No other named vendor (SimCheck, Originality, iThenticate, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) returned a first-party result on sfasu.edu in this sweep.
What SFA's Code of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity says about how cases proceed
- Who may be present
- "Advisor — an individual serving as a guide for the Complainant or Respondent during the student conduct process. An Advisor may confer with and advise the Student." At a Formal Hearing: "assisted by an Advisor of choice. The Advisor may be an attorney." On recording: "The hearing will be recorded. If either party desires to Appeal the decision... the official record will consist of the recording of the hearing, the documents received in... The recording will be made available upon request." — Code of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, Policy 04-106 (last revised Aug 19, 2025; retrieved Oct 1, 2026) · SFA HOP 04-106
- What follows on the record
- "The academic transcript of a Student suspended or expelled for disciplinary reasons (not academic or financial) shall be marked with 'Disciplinary Suspension' or 'Disciplinary Expulsion' as appropriate." Not stated for an academic sanction alone (a failing or reduced grade) that does not reach suspension or expulsion. On retention: "Records of academic integrity cases shall be maintained for at least five years," by the Dean of Students Office, "treated as confidential," disclosed only "upon written authorization of the Student or in accordance with applicable state or federal laws or court order or subpoena." — Code of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, Policy 04-106 (retrieved Oct 1, 2026) · SFA HOP 04-106
The two questions an adviser raises first, answered from this institution's own published documents — or recorded as not stated in them.
On how a case begins and is decided, Policy 04-106 states (last revised Aug 19, 2025; retrieved Oct 1, 2026):
Source: Code of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, SFA HOP 04-106. Sanctions for an academic-conduct finding include, among others the policy lists, "a failing grade or reduction of a grade for an examination, assignment, or for a course," up to suspension or expulsion; "[i]n assessing and approving sanctions for academic dishonesty, the Dean of Students shall give preference to the recommended sanction of the faculty member involved." 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.
Where the documents live
| Document | Location |
|---|---|
| Generative AI Resources (AI-detection tools, Brightspace Dropbox/Turnitin) | sfasu.edu — CTL Generative AI Resources |
| Code of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (Policy 04-106) | sfasu.edu — HOP 04-106 (last revised Aug 19, 2025) |
| Dean of Students Office (contact) | sfasu.edu/sco — Dean of Students Office |
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.
Revision history of this page
2026-10-01 — Page created (scheduled run; cold build, no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts.json research to reuse). Slug "sfasu" used, the institution's own common short form, no collision. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and category sweep (the Center for Teaching and Learning's generative-AI resources, the Code of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity, the Dean of Students Office pages) found Turnitin confirmed integrated into Brightspace's Dropbox tool, with the CTL's own page naming Turnitin's AI-detection tools, GPTZero and Copyleaks together as tools that "exist to detect the use of generative AI" and cautioning on accuracy and false positives. Read as naming the category and the integration rather than as a plain statement that AI-writing detection is turned on for grading, so the docket states what the source says rather than reading "enabled" into it. NOT DISQUALIFIED: no detector is described as disabled or recommended against outright — the caution quoted is a reliability warning accompanying a named, available capability, the same pattern as several other built pages in this collection (etsu, csueastbay, uwgb, uww). PROCESS: Policy 04-106 (last revised Aug 19, 2025) is unusually complete in one document — investigation by the accusing faculty member, preponderance standard, an Advisor right (may be an attorney) at the formal-hearing stage, a recorded hearing with the recording available on request, a sanctions list spanning warning through expulsion with a stated preference for the reporting faculty member's recommended sanction, a 14-day appeal window to an Appeal Officer on four stated grounds, a 10-day decision window, and a transcript-notation rule scoped explicitly to suspension/expulsion (not to a standalone academic/grade sanction) alongside a five-year minimum retention period for academic-integrity-case records. The policy post-dates SFA's 2024 move into the UT System, which is why it refers to "U.T. System" institutions and the "Office of General Counsel of the U.T. System" — read as current rather than as an error. Not stated: a recording or advisor rule for the earlier faculty-investigation stage itself (both rules quoted are stated for the Formal Hearing specifically), and a transcript-notation rule for an academic sanction that does not reach suspension or expulsion — both recorded as scope limits. OFFICE: Dean of Students Office, Baker Pattillo Student Center Room 3.105, 936-468-7249, dos@sfasu.edu — captured from the office's own contact page; Policy 04-106 does not name a separate "Academic Integrity Officer" role, so the Dean of Students Office is used throughout. OMBUDS/ADVOCACY CHECKED AND NOT FOUND: no office titled ombudsperson, ombudsman, or student advocate was located on sfasu.edu itself; the only first-party "ombudsman" result on the domain is the federal Student Aid Ombudsman Group (a U.S. Department of Education office for federal loan disputes, not an SFA office and not scoped to academic integrity) and is not substituted — docket states "None located." SAME TOOLING DEFECT AS csi and angelostate (this pass, third occurrence): propose-recipe.py proposed the Reassembly footer link as a 4th capture source; removed by hand before capture. Already covered by FA-Q-20261001-01 in field-assembly-standard. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-01). Internet Archive captures: to be added.
2026-10-06 — 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: sfasu.edu/sco — Dean of Students Office → https://web.archive.org/web/20261006044001/https://sfasu.edu/sco/about; Generative AI Resources — Center for Teaching and Learning → https://web.archive.org/web/20261006044033/https://www.sfasu.edu/ctl/resources/generative-ai/resources; SFA HOP 04-106 → https://web.archive.org/web/20261006044106/https://www.sfasu.edu/docs/hops/04-106.pdf.
Spot an error or an outdated quotation? hello@gatheredwork.com — corrections are made on the record, in this log.