Southern Illinois University Carbondale.

Detection status: Copyleaks is deployed in D2L Brightspace with AI-content detection on by default, replacing a prior Turnitin deployment; CTE's own FAQ separately describes Respondus Monitor's webcam exam proctoring as "AI Cheating Detection"
Office in these sources: Student Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) · Student Services Building 497, 1263 Lincoln Drive, MC 4718, Carbondale, IL 62901 · 618-536-2338 · studentrights@siu.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: Student Ombudsperson (Saluki Cares) — SIU's own page describes the role as "confidential, informal, neutral," providing "impartial and informal consultation" to students, and states it does not "[a]dvocate for individuals or take sides" or "[m]ake or overturn academic/administrative decisions" · salukicares.siu.edu — Student Ombudsperson
Sources last checked: Oct 8, 2026

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

SIU Carbondale'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 may also apply. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

AI detection is in use at SIU Carbondale, through Copyleaks

SIU News announced the transition from Turnitin in a Dec. 5, 2024 post (retrieved Oct 8, 2026):

“Faculty are encouraged to plan ahead for their spring courses by attending ‘Copyleaks Basics for Instructors,’ […] CTE's instructional design team will lead training that covers the new artificial intelligence and plagiarism detection tool that is replacing the Turnitin detection tool.”

Source: Center for Teaching Excellence finals and winter break services — SIU News (dated Dec 5, 2024; retrieved Oct 8, 2026). The OIT Knowledge Base's current instructor job aid states what the tool does and its default settings (created Oct 23, 2024; updated Aug 4, 2026; retrieved Oct 8, 2026):

"This panel provides switches to enable AI Content detection and Plagiarism detection, which are on by default (switches shown below are in the 'on' position)." "Student Moderation – Uncheck the boxes to hide certain detection results from the student report. By default, students can see all aspects of the report. This is a good idea if an instructor wants to run an AI check but not penalize students for the use of AI." "The report shows the Matched Text and AI Content percentages. It also provides links to matching sources. It will show internet sources, internal database (CopyLeaks) sources, and SIU internal matches."

Source: How to Use Copyleaks in D2L — OIT Knowledge Base. SIU runs D2L Brightspace rather than Canvas. The Center for Teaching Excellence's own AI-teaching page separately recommends the same tool to instructors: "Quickly set up and use Copyleaks in D2L to check for AI-generated and copied content—this guide makes it easy to support academic integrity in your course." Source: AI and Teaching — Center for Teaching Excellence (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 8, 2026).

A second, distinct claim appears on the CTE's own FAQ, describing an exam-proctoring tool in detection terms: "CTE Technology with AI Cheating Detection: CTE offers using Respondus Monitor to detect using AI. Respondus Monitor uses webcams to deter cheating during online exams." This is SIU's own framing of a webcam-proctoring tool, not a claim that Respondus evaluates written text for AI generation — the two claims are kept separate on this page. The same FAQ adds a caution about detector reliability generally: "AI to Detect AI: Emerging AI tools can detect AI-generated content. Classifiers can be helpful in detecting AI-generated content, but they are not foolproof!" Source: AI and Teaching — Center for Teaching Excellence (FAQ section) (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 8, 2026).

Scope of the search behind the above: a named-vendor sweep of siu.edu (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 Center for Teaching Excellence, the OIT Knowledge Base, the library's AI research guide, and Student Rights and Responsibilities (SRR). No other detector was found named as deployed, and no page located states a weight the Copyleaks score carries once a case reaches an instructor or SRR — the OIT guide documents the tool's mechanics, not an evidentiary policy for using its output.

02Published procedure

What SIU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: "The accused student is permitted an advisor but the advisor is not permitted to speak or participate in the hearing in any way." — Academic Misconduct, Student Rights and Responsibilities (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 8, 2026) · Academic Misconduct — SRR. Recording of the hearing is not addressed on this page.
What follows on the record: Not stated in the sources reviewed for transcript notation, retention period, or disclosure outside the University. The Academic Misconduct page states only that "[t]he instructor should contact SRR prior to making a decision to check the student's judicial history," which establishes that SRR keeps a record used across cases but does not state how long it is kept or whether it reaches a transcript, an employer, or a licensing board.

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

SRR's Academic Misconduct page sets out jurisdiction and the two tracks a case can take (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 8, 2026):

"The instructor of record has initial jurisdiction for all academic misconduct related to a specific class. […] Student and SRR must be notified within 90 days of incident!!" "The instructor will notify the student, in writing, of the alleged violation(s) of the code. The student may accept responsibility in writing. If so, following a conversation with the student, the instructor may assign any sanction deemed appropriate […] If a student feels that the sanction is not appropriate, he or she may appeal only the sanctions to the Administrative Review Board." "The case is forwarded to the appropriate Dean, or designee […] The Dean will schedule a hearing, giving at least five days' notice […] At the hearing, instructor and student, in that order, will have equal opportunity to present information and evidence in regard to the allegation. […] The final decision must be communicated to the student and SRR within five days of the hearing. Students may appeal the finding and/or the sanctions to the appropriate appeal body."

If the student instead denies responsibility, this is the contested track. Source: Academic Misconduct — Student Rights and Responsibilities. No evidentiary standard (such as a preponderance-of-the-evidence rule) is stated anywhere on this page. Possible sanctions listed include academic censure, an assignment- or course-grade adjustment, suspension (requiring Director of SRR approval), and expulsion (issued only by the Director of SRR). 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
Center for Teaching Excellence finals and winter break services (Turnitin-to-Copyleaks transition)	news.siu.edu — Dec 5, 2024 (retrieved Oct 8, 2026)
How to Use Copyleaks in D2L (AI detection on by default; student-visible report)	oitkb.siu.edu — Using Copyleaks in D2L (created Oct 23, 2024; updated Aug 4, 2026; retrieved Oct 8, 2026)
AI and Teaching — Center for Teaching Excellence (Copyleaks guidance; Respondus Monitor "AI Cheating Detection" framing; detector-reliability caution)	cte.siu.edu/instructional-support/ai-teaching (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 8, 2026)
Academic Misconduct (jurisdiction, hearing process, advisor, sanctions)	srr.siu.edu — Academic Misconduct (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 8, 2026)
Student Rights and Responsibilities (SRR)	Student Services Building 497, 1263 Lincoln Drive, MC 4718, Carbondale, IL 62901 · 618-536-2338 · studentrights@siu.edu — srr.siu.edu (retrieved Oct 8, 2026)
Student Ombudsperson (Saluki Cares)	salukicares.siu.edu — Student Ombudsperson (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Oct 8, 2026)

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

2026-10-08 — Page created in an unattended scheduled build pass; not a human review. All quotations retrieved this date from the pages linked beside them; source dates where displayed are a Dec 5, 2024 SIU News post and the OIT Knowledge Base article's own "Created" (Oct 23, 2024) and "Updated" (Aug 4, 2026) lines. 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 (the Center for Teaching Excellence, the OIT Knowledge Base, the library's AI research guide, Student Rights and Responsibilities) confirmed Copyleaks deployed in D2L Brightspace with AI-content detection switched on by default and a student-visible report by default, replacing a prior Turnitin deployment per a dated SIU News announcement. A framing distinction preserved rather than collapsed. The CTE's own FAQ labels Respondus Monitor "AI Cheating Detection," which is SIU's own wording for a webcam exam-proctoring tool ("to deter cheating during online exams"), not a claim that the tool evaluates written submissions for AI generation; both Copyleaks and Respondus Monitor are quoted in the institution's own words rather than normalized into one category. No evidentiary weight stated. No SIU page located states what weight a Copyleaks score carries once a case reaches an instructor or SRR, or whether student moderation of the report (hiding results) is the default or an instructor option — the OIT guide documents the default as visible to students unless an instructor changes it. Office and ombuds findings. Student Rights and Responsibilities (SRR) is the office named throughout the Academic Misconduct page for jurisdiction, judicial-history checks and final-decision reporting. SIU's Student Ombudsperson (Saluki Cares) meets this site's independence/confidentiality bar on its own description and is explicitly student-facing, distinct from SIU's separate faculty/staff ombudspersons (hr.siu.edu), which were not used for this page. Record question left open. Not stated in the sources reviewed: transcript notation, retention period, or disclosure beyond the University; the 95-page Student Conduct Code PDF that SRR's conduct-code page links to was not fetched in this bounded pass, since the Academic Misconduct page already answers the hearing-process and accompaniment questions this site asks, and a future pass may check the full Code for a transcript-notation provision this page does not state. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-08).

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