Southern University and A&M College.

What the SUBR Student Code of Conduct says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

The Judicial Process — expressly scoped by the Code to "behavioral misconduct violations" — gives "[t]he accused student or student organization and alleged victim have the right to be represented, at their own expense, by an attorney or a non-attorney advocate who may fully participate during any disciplinary proceeding." Whether this governs the separate Academic Misconduct section's own escalation to suspension or expulsion after repeat offenses is not stated; that section says only that the student "will be afforded due process as defined in the Student Code of Conduct." — SUBR Student Code of Conduct (Rev. 7/2025) · Student Code of Conduct 2025

What follows on the record

Not stated in the sources reviewed: no provision describes a notation on a student's academic transcript for academic misconduct. What is stated: a "Conduct Hold" "[p]revents the student from conducting business at the University (i.e., any form of registration or obtaining transcripts)" while a matter is open, and a disciplinary hearing's "Administrative File" may include "video recording, audio recording, or transcript of any disciplinary hearing" — a hearing record, not an academic-transcript entry. — SUBR Student Code of Conduct (Rev. 7/2025) · Student Code of Conduct 2025

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

The Code (Rev. 7/2025; retrieved Oct 17, 2026) treats Academic Misconduct as its own track, separate from the Behavioral Misconduct process below it. Under "Reporting Academic Misconduct," an instructor who accuses a student "is responsible for taking appropriate action initially," and "may give the student a penalty grade of 'F' for the assignment, exam, or course if there is sufficient evidence." The instructor "shall report the misconduct to the Academic Dean's Office and the Office of Student Conduct," using a listed reporting form. Repeat findings escalate: "For the first penalty grade issued by an instructor, the responsible student will receive a letter from the Office of Student Conduct informing them of being placed on disciplinary probation for one academic year"; "[f]or the second penalty grade, the responsible student will be suspended from the University for one full semester," with written notice of rights and due process; "[f]or the third penalty grade, the responsible student will be expelled from the University for repeated violations of academic misconduct."

The Code's detailed hearing rules — "The Judicial Process" — are stated to govern "behavioral misconduct violations," handled "through the Division of Student Affairs, Office of Student Conduct, and the Community Standards Review Board." There, the standard of proof differs by offense tier: Code One offenses require every element "proven by clear and convincing evidence," while Code Two offenses use "a preponderance of the evidence." "All hearings will be audio or video recorded by the Division of Student Affairs. No other person shall have the right to record any hearings." An appeal of a Code One decision goes "to Associate Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs" within "ten (10) days," decided within "fourteen (14) days," on grounds of "new evidence, contradictory evidence, and evidence that the accused student... was not afforded due process"; a Code Two appeal runs on a shorter "seventy-two (72) hours" window. UNRESOLVED CROSS-REFERENCE: the Academic Misconduct section's escalation to suspension or expulsion points only to "due process as defined in the Student Code of Conduct," without stating whether that means this Judicial Process, a different procedure, or an unwritten practice; the Code does not reconcile the two sections with each other, and neither does this page. Source: Student Code of Conduct 2025. 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

2026-10-17 — Page created. Priority A tranche 4, entry 268. Cold build (no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts research). All quotations retrieved this date. The SUS-1-004 policy carries its own "Effective Date: 08/15/2025," "Last Reviewed Date: 05/28/2025," and "Origination Date: 05/28/2025"; the Student Code of Conduct identifies itself as "SUBR Student Code of Conduct (REV. 7/2025)" in its own running footer, and its file was last modified 2025-08-28 per server headers. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI writing indicator specifically, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) found only Turnitin, indexed by search engines as a Moodle plagiarism-detection tool. A SUBR instructor page previously indexed with that description (subr.edu/index.cfm?page=Turnitin) could not be captured first-party this pass: both a direct browser read and a dedicated capture attempt returned the site's generic homepage rather than Turnitin content, so nothing is quoted from it and it does not appear in the source map; the finding rests instead on the System's own AI policy (below), which independently treats plagiarism-checking software as a non-AI category. DISQUALIFICATION CHECK: the System's Comprehensive Artificial Intelligence Use Policy (SUS-1-004) discusses AI detection tools only conditionally ("[i]f AI detection tools are used...") and cautions about false positives and bias, but does not recommend against detection or state that any tool has been disabled; not disqualified. TRANSPORT NOTE: both PDFs (SUS-1-004 and the Student Code of Conduct 2025) returned HTTP 403 to an unbrowsered fetch tool but HTTP 200 with full text to curl under a declared browser User-Agent string. EXTRACTION FIX: the proposed pdftotext-raw mode dropped inter-word spaces across justified line wraps in both PDFs ("anyform," "byan attorneyor," "conductingbusiness"); the recipe was switched to pdftotext-layout for both, which preserved spacing and reproduced every quotation on this page verbatim; verified against this page's quotations by check-fidelity.py with zero failures after the switch. NUMBERING DIVERGENCE: SUBR's "Recent Policy Approval Briefs" page names the AI policy "Comprehensive AI Use Policy (SUS-6-001)," while the policy PDF's own header states "POLICY NUMBER SUS – 1-004" under "Policy Classification: Academic Affairs," twice; both quoted, neither resolved. PROCESS drawn from the Student Code of Conduct 2025: the Academic Misconduct section's own penalty-grade escalation (instructor-level "F," then letters, then one-semester suspension, then expulsion on a third finding) is reproduced in full; the Judicial Process section's standard-of-proof split (Code One: clear and convincing; Code Two: preponderance), recording rule, and appeal windows are reproduced and explicitly flagged as scoped by the Code's own text to "behavioral misconduct violations" — the cross-reference from Academic Misconduct's escalation step to "due process as defined in the Student Code of Conduct" is quoted but not resolved, since the Code itself does not state which track governs. RECORD ROW: no provision describing an academic-transcript notation was found for academic misconduct specifically; the "Conduct Hold" definition (blocks registration and obtaining transcripts while a matter is open) and the "Administrative File" definition (may include a hearing recording or transcript) are the only record-adjacent provisions located, and both are quoted with the distinction from an academic-transcript notation stated explicitly. OMBUDS/ADVOCACY: the Office of Student Advocacy, self-described as providing "neutral and confidential assistance" for "academic and non-academic issues," with one staff member's title given as "Student Ombuds/Advocate" on the office's own canonical page (subr.edu/subhome/111) — a separate, differently-worded staging copy at subr.edu/page/student-advocacy explicitly instructs a reader to use the canonical page instead, so the canonical page's text is what is quoted here and the staging copy is not in the source map. OFFICE: the Division of Student Affairs' staff directory (subr.edu/subhome/studentaffairs, read directly and captured first-party) lists Kelwin Williams as Director of Student Conduct, (225) 771-2130, Kelwin.Williams@sus.edu (a sus.edu address, as published), at the division's own address, 213 Smith-Brown Memorial Student Union; a separate Office of Student Conduct FAQ page surfaced by search, which would describe that office's own floor and suite, could not be located directly in this pass, so the docket uses only the address confirmed on the page actually captured. PROCESS-VERIFICATION SWEEP: bounded to the pages above plus one additional site search; found nothing beyond the "data gathering"/"conversation" language already quoted from SUS-1-004 in section 01. Deliberately not used: a 2016/2019-dated prior edition of the Student Code of Conduct (superseded by the Rev. 7/2025 edition used throughout this page). Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-17).

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