Slippery Rock University of Pennsylvania.

What the Academic Integrity Policy says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

The initial faculty meeting is limited to the instructor and student: "This meeting is limited to the faculty member and the student," and "No audio or video recording of the meeting is allowed." At a Board hearing on appeal, "The student may attend the Board hearing with an advisor," though the advisor "may not address the board." The policy does not address recording of a Board hearing itself.

What follows on the record

Not stated in the sources reviewed. The policy names who is notified of a finding — the student, the chair of the student's major, the chair of the course's department, the academic adviser, the Dean, and the Office of Student Conduct, with repeated violations referred to that office — but states no transcript-notation symbol, retention period, or third-party-disclosure rule.

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 (retrieved Oct 15, 2026) applies to all SRU students "except students in those academic programs that have program-specific academic integrity policies, such as the Doctor of Physical Therapy Program, Doctor of Occupational Therapy Program, Physician Assistant Studies Program, and the Doctor of Education in Special Education Program," which carry different standards "due to accreditation agency requirements or related Pennsylvania of Department of Education requirements." It states no labeled evidentiary standard anywhere in its text; the closest it comes is behavioral: "A faculty member may impose a negative finding where the evidence supports a finding that a violation occurred and the faculty member believes, in their discretion, that no further response or information is required."

Faculty-level sanctions "may include one or more of the following that are at the faculty member's discretion": "Verbal warning"; "Developing a remediation plan for educational intervention"; "Re-examination, re-writing the paper, re-producing the assignment by the student"; "Reduction in grade/score for the examination, paper or assignment"; "Assigning a failing grade for the assignment"; "Assigning a failing grade for the course." Source: Academic Integrity — SRU Academic Catalog (amended March 13, 2024). What these quotations mean for any particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-10-15 — Page created. Cold build; no prior CANDIDATES.md or procedure-facts.json research to reuse. SIXTH PASSHE CHECK, SAME ANSWER: no system-level PASSHE detection position has been found at any of the five PASSHE campuses built before this one (West Chester, entry 125; Commonwealth University, entry 183; Pennsylvania Western, entry 217; Indiana University of Pennsylvania, entry 242), confirming again that detection status is set per campus, not by the System; nothing from those pages was carried over here, and this campus got its own full sweep. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and category sweep (the Academic Integrity Policy, the library's AI research guide, a search of SRU's IT/academic-technology pages, the Dean of Students page, and the Office of Student Conduct page) found no detector named anywhere on sru.edu. NOT DISQUALIFIED: an empty inventory, not a documented deactivation. PORTAL NOT CAPTURED, LISTED ONLY: academicintegrity.sru.edu redirects to a Microsoft Entra ID (Azure AD) sign-in page and could not be read without an SRU account; it is listed by link in the source map and nothing is quoted from behind it, the same treatment given to other login-gated portals elsewhere in this collection (e.g. cityuseattle's my.cityu.edu/turnitin/ portal). OFFICE CONTACT: the policy itself names no single case-handling office with its own phone or email — it names the Associate Provost (appeal reviewer), the Academic Integrity Review Board, and the Office of Student Conduct (repeat-violation referrals); the docket uses the Office of Student Conduct's own published phone number rather than the Associate Provost's generic Academic Affairs line or a named individual's personal address, since the Student Conduct page is the one SRU office that names itself in this process and publishes its own contact. OMBUDS/ADVOCACY CHECKED AND NOT FOUND: no office titled ombudsperson, ombudsman, or student advocate was located anywhere on sru.edu in this review; the Dean of Students page describes "student support, disability services, student basic needs, personal integrity, health education and student conduct" and an "empowerment model centered on human growth and development," but does not describe itself as neutral, confidential, impartial, or independent and does not mention academic integrity, so it is not substituted for an ombuds. RECORD ABSENCE NAMED: no transcript notation, retention period, or disclosure rule for an academic-integrity finding is stated in the policy; only the distribution list for a finding (student, major chair, department chair, adviser, Dean, Office of Student Conduct at the faculty stage; the same list plus the Provost and Associate Provost at the Board stage) is published. SEVERAL FIDELITY CORRECTIONS ON FIRST RUN, ALL FROM THE SAME CAUSE: the first capture of this page drew section 02 from a web-reader tool's summarized paraphrase of the policy rather than the policy's own captured text, which read close enough to pass a casual check but did not trace word-for-word — the program-exception sentence, the AI-responsibility sentence's verb ("is," not "must be"), the appeal-window sentence, all four appeal grounds, and the sanctions list were each corrected to the packet's verbatim wording. The lesson carried forward: a tool's summary of a page is a lead to verify against the captured source, never a substitute for it. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-15).

2026-10-15 — 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: Academic Integrity — SRU Academic Catalog → https://web.archive.org/web/20261015125744/https://catalog.sru.edu/academic-policies/academic-integrity/; Artificial Intelligence — University Library guide → https://web.archive.org/web/20261015125816/https://sru.libguides.com/computerscience/AI; sru.edu — Dean of Students → https://web.archive.org/web/20261015125849/https://www.sru.edu/offices/dean-of-students; sru.edu — Student Conduct → https://web.archive.org/web/20261015125921/https://www.sru.edu/offices/student-conduct.

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