Southern Utah University.

What SUU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

General meetings under Policy 11.2: "Respondents may choose to be accompanied by an Advisor to any related meeting or proceeding. The Advisor may not disrupt the meetings or other proceedings or speak on behalf of the Respondent. Generally, the Advisor is limited to listening and quietly conferring with the Respondent." At a Panel Hearing specifically, the role widens: "Students may have an Advisor, who may be, but is not required to be an attorney, to advocate on their behalf," and may "[p]resent questions during the hearing," subject to the Panel Chair's control. Recording of a meeting or hearing is not addressed either way in the sources reviewed. — SUU Policy 11.2, Student Conduct Code (retrieved Sep 19, 2026) · Policy 11.2

What follows on the record

"Manual submission of a grade for the course to the Registrar's Office. A transcript comment indicating that there was 'Academic Misconduct' will be attached to the course and grade signifying that the Student violated this Policy. Grades assigned as part of this Policy shall not be eliminated or discounted from a Student's cumulative GPA or academic record by repeating the class or requesting academic renewal." Incidents are also recorded "in the University's central case management database and the Student's academic record." No numeric retention period or disclosure to graduate programs, employers, or licensing boards is stated in the sources reviewed. — SUU Policy 6.33, Academic Misconduct

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

From the Academic Misconduct page and Policy 6.33 (retrieved Sep 19, 2026; no page-stated date on either):

Sources: Academic Misconduct, Policy 6.33. Any Sanction that results in a reduced grade "is not eligible for a grade appeal (SUU Policy 6.19)" — a separate grade-appeal policy the pages reviewed name but this review did not independently capture. What these quotations mean for any particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-19 — Page created (cold build, Priority A tranche 4, entry 136 — no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts.json research to reuse). 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 (CTI's Academic Integrity Tools and Statements page, Policy 6.33, the Academic Misconduct page, the Student Guide to Artificial Intelligence) found CopyLeaks documented as a similarity checker, with CTI's own instruction not to call it a "plagiarism checker," and Honorlock documented only for exam proctoring — no AI-text detector confirmed deployed. NOT DISQUALIFIED (nothing disables or recommends against a detector; the finding is an empty inventory). GENUINE SCOPE DIFFERENCE within Policy 11.2, reproduced rather than resolved: the general-meeting Advisor role is described as silent/support-only ("limited to listening and quietly conferring"), while the same policy's Panel Hearing section describes an Advisor who may "advocate on their behalf" and present questions — two different roles at two different stages of the same process, not a contradiction. TRANSCRIPT NOTATION, unusual among built pages so far: Policy 6.33 ties a transcript comment ("Academic Misconduct") to the instructor's own grade sanction, not only to a University-level suspension or expulsion sanction — quoted directly rather than assumed. Recording of a meeting or hearing is not addressed in either policy read (Policy 6.33 in full; Policy 11.2's General Provisions, Advisors, and Panel Hearing sections). No numeric record-retention period was located in either policy. OFFICE: Dean of Students Office publishes an email (deanofstudentsoffice@suu.edu) on its own pages; no phone number or physical address was found published on the Dean of Students landing, contact, or "meet our team" pages (the last now returns a 404) in this review — stated as not published rather than substituted from an unconfirmed source. Two Academic Integrity Specialists are named by college on the Academic Misconduct page and are not a phone-reachable office of their own. OMBUDS: none located; searched suu.edu broadly for ombuds/ombudsman/student-advocate terminology and found no dedicated office. Fidelity: check-fidelity.py found 1 initial failure — the CTI page's two-tool list had been joined into a comma-separated run-on that didn't match its actual line-by-line bulleted formatting; corrected to quote the lead-in sentence and name each list item outside the quotation marks. Traces to tools/packets/suu-packet.txt with zero failures. Gated in tools/fidelity-gate.txt. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-20).

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