Saginaw Valley State University.

What SVSU's Academic Integrity Policy and Code of Student Conduct say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

The Code of Student Conduct defines a "Support Person" as "any individual chosen by the respondent or the complainant to provide support before, during, and after the conduct conference process," who "may not formally represent the respondent or the complainant during the hearing and may not otherwise disrupt the hearing." The Academic Integrity Board's own hearing script separately confirms recording occurs: "Tape recorder is turned on." — Code of Student Conduct 2026–2027 and Academic Integrity Board Multiple Hearing Procedure

What follows on the record

No transcript-notation language is used anywhere in the sources reviewed. What is stated: "All cases concerning academic dishonesty must be recorded in the Office of Student Conduct Programs," and, in the Code's general hearing procedures, "Each hearing will be recorded on audio tape, which will be retained by the University for three years after enrollment of the respondent." No disclosure provision is stated. — Academic Integrity Policy and Code of Student Conduct

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 Integrity Policy (Approved: Jun 15, 2026 by SVSU Board of Control; retrieved Oct 19, 2026): a faculty member who suspects dishonesty may resolve the matter directly or refer it to the Office of Student Conduct Programs as a Formal Report ("the student will be charged with a violation of academic integrity, will meet with the Office of Student Conduct Programs") or an Informal Report ("the case is only for the record, no action will be taken"). For a formal referral, "[n]otification" is by "Notice of Charge," and the student may accept or deny responsibility; denial sends the matter to "a Hearing Panel of two (2) faculty members and two (2) students from the Academic Integrity Board," or, on an admission, "one (1) faculty member from the Academic Integrity Board and a Student Conduct officer." Sanctions range from a mandatory integrity workshop through university probation, course withdrawal, suspension, and expulsion; "[a] first-time offense will include the minimum sanctions of attendance at a workshop… and university probation for up to two semesters." "Written appeals must be submitted within three (3) class days of the written notification of the decision of the Hearing Panel," reviewed jointly by the Provost and the Associate Provost for Student Affairs/Dean of Students, whose decision "is final." No evidentiary standard is stated in this Academic Integrity-specific procedure, and the Academic Integrity Board's own hearing script — which opens with "Tape recorder is turned on" and otherwise sequences a complainant's and accused student's statements, witnesses, and questioning — does not state one either.

A preponderance standard and a support-person right are stated elsewhere in the same Code of Student Conduct document, in its general Hearing Procedures rather than inside the Academic Integrity-specific procedure above, and nothing on SVSU's pages states whether that general section governs an Academic Integrity Board hearing specifically — both are reproduced rather than reconciled. The Code's general Hearing Procedures state: "The respondent and the complainant may be advised and accompanied by a support person of their choosing… Any other presentations and questioning of witnesses shall be conducted solely by the student," and "[a] hearing officer(s) shall attempt to establish the facts relevant to the reported violation based solely on the evidence presented at the hearing. Any findings must be based on a preponderance of the evidence, meaning that the evidence, considered in its entirety, indicates that, more likely than not, the respondent committed the violation." The same section adds: "Each hearing will be recorded on audio tape, which will be retained by the University for three years after enrollment of the respondent," and "[a]ll proceedings shall be private, unless otherwise requested by the student." Source: Academic Integrity Policy and Code of Student Conduct 2026–2027. 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

2026-10-19 — Page created. Priority A tranche 4, entry 277. Cold build (scheduled, unattended); no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts.json research to reuse. All quotations retrieved this date. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI detection capability specifically, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) found Turnitin confirmed first-party as the only AI-text detector SVSU directs faculty to use, via the Office of Student Conduct Programs' "FAQ: Addressing Suspected AI Violations of Academic Integrity" (PDF; no on-page revision date, file metadata dated Jul 24, 2025, author Joseph M. Finney); the same FAQ names GPTZero, Originality.AI, Copyleaks AI Content Detector, and Writer.com AI Detector only as tools faculty are told not to use, citing FERPA. EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT, carried into the status line: "No, not solely… should not be used as standalone evidence for an academic dishonesty charge." PROCESS-BASED VERIFICATION, found at the bounded scope (the FAQ itself; the Academic Integrity Policy; the Resources for Students and Resources for Faculty pages; one site search): the same FAQ's best-practices list directs faculty toward "process-based assignments (e.g., drafts, reflections, writing logs)" and "student interviews to clarify intent and method," carried into the status line and section 01. DISQUALIFICATION CHECK: not disqualified — nothing swept states Turnitin's AI detection has been disabled or recommends against using it; the FAQ's caution concerns evidentiary weight, not withdrawal of the tool. STRUCTURAL DIVERGENCE RECORDED, NOT RESOLVED: the Academic Integrity Policy's own "Procedural Guidelines for Formal Resolutions" (Hearing Panel composition, 3-class-day appeal window) state no evidentiary standard, and the Academic Integrity Board's own hearing script (opens "Tape recorder is turned on") states none either; a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and a support-person right appear instead in the same Code of Student Conduct document's general Hearing Procedures section, which also states the audio-recording-retention period (three years after the respondent's enrollment) and a private-proceedings default. Nothing on SVSU's pages states whether that general section governs an Academic Integrity Board hearing specifically, so both are reproduced side by side rather than reconciled. RECORDS: no "transcript" language appears anywhere in the Academic Integrity Policy or the Code of Student Conduct in connection with academic dishonesty; the only record-keeping language found is that cases "must be recorded in the Office of Student Conduct Programs" and the audio-tape retention period above; no disclosure provision (graduate-school, employer, or licensing-board) is stated anywhere reviewed. OFFICE: Office of Student Conduct Programs, 114 Curtiss, 989-964-2220, confirmed on the Code of Student Conduct's own contact header and on the Student Conduct Hearing Board page, which also publishes the Director's email, jhooks@svsu.edu (Dr. Jeffery Hooks). SECOND CONTACT FOUND, NOT USED AS THE DOCKET ADDRESS: the Resources for Faculty page's own email templates direct faculty with policy questions to "989-964-2220 or by email at jmfinney@svsu.edu" — the same phone number but a different, unnamed-title address matching the FAQ's own author (Joseph M. Finney); both are first-party and the divergence is recorded rather than resolved, with the Code's own masthead contact used as the docket's primary address. OMBUDS: none located — a bounded sweep (site search for "ombuds" and "student advocacy," plus the Student Affairs/Dean of Students office page) found no office by that name or function; the Associate Provost for Student Affairs/Dean of Students is the office that administers conduct matters and hears appeals, not a separate advocacy or ombuds office. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-19).

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