Texas A&M International University.

What TAMIU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

A student "has the opportunity to be assisted by an advisor they choose, at their own expense," but "[a]dvisors are not permitted to represent any student at an Honor Council appeal hearing. An advisor may be present and communicate with the student but shall not address the Honor Council at the appeal hearing." A written request for an advisor must be made "a minimum of three University business days before the scheduled appeal hearing." Recording is addressed only for the Honor Council stage: "There shall be a single record of all Honor Council appeal hearings and deliberation. The record shall be the property of the University."

What follows on the record

No special academic-dishonesty transcript notation is stated anywhere in the sources reviewed; the standard sanction is a course grade itself (commonly an "F" on the assignment or in the course), which appears on the transcript the way any grade would. A student placed on "Honor Code Probation" may face additional, separately stated restrictions, including inability "to receive an official transcript" while probation is in effect. The Honor Council "will disclose the outcome to persons who meet the definition of a school official who has a legitimate educational interest in the record."

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

"Any member of the University community has the right to file a report against a student" for a Student Code of Conduct violation; a report "should be filed in writing within 15 University business days of the discovery of the alleged infraction." For an academic violation specifically, the student is notified "via University email or in person," with the sanctioning letter copied to the Provost, department Chair and Dean, the Registrar, and (for graduate students) the Graduate School. A Student Conduct Administrator then meets with the student to explain the charge, discuss rights and responsibilities, and hear any statement; "[s]hould the student respondent accept responsibility during the course of the meeting with faculty or Student Conduct Administrator, the respondent waives their right to appeal."

The evidentiary standard is stated twice, in two different phrasings that are reproduced rather than reconciled: Article 8 (governing non-academic conduct generally) sets "a preponderance of the evidence," defined as "sufficient evidence to show that the facts are more likely to be true than not true," while Article 10's academic-conduct introduction states the accused "shall be presumed not responsible until it is proven that a violation of the university rules occurred by a preponderance of the information standard."

Faculty assign the initial grade-based sanction — for a first violation, typically an "F" on the assignment or in the course, depending on course level and whether the faculty member finds a deliberate attempt to deceive rather than a misunderstanding of citation rules. Beyond the grade, "[t]he Honor Council may make a request to the Provost" for general sanctions — probation, suspension, or expulsion — with escalating standard sanctions for second violations and for graduate students on a first violation. If the Honor Council upholds the faculty member's charge, "a request for appeal may be made in writing to the provost" within 10 University business days of the Council's decision, on one of three named grounds: "[s]ubstantial new evidence," "[p]rocedural irregularities," or "[t]he sanction is not commensurate with the violation." After receiving the written request, the Provost (or designee) may: "[d]eny the request for an appeal and the Honor Council decision will be final," "[a]ccept the appeal and ask the Honor Council to reconvene and hear the case again with the new information," or, "[i]f the Provost grants the appeal upon a procedural irregularity, the Provost can reverse the decision." Source: Article 10, Academic Conduct Proceedings. 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

2026-10-14 — Page created (unattended scheduled build; cold build, no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts.json research to reuse). Priority A tranche 4, entry 254. 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) found Turnitin and Respondus LockDown Browser both listed as OIT-supported instructional technologies, and a dedicated "AI Writing" resource section (five linked instructor guides, hosted on guides.turnitin.com) on TAMIU's own Turnitin support page — treated as confirming AI Writing Detection is part of TAMIU's supported Turnitin offering, while being explicit that the linked guides are vendor-authored, not TAMIU prose, and that no TAMIU page states the feature's campus-wide enablement, visibility to students, or evidentiary weight. Category sweep (OIT, Instructional Technology and Distance Education Services/eLearning pages, the Student Handbook Articles 7, 8 and 10) found no library or teaching-center AI-detection guidance of any kind — neither a caution against the tool nor further confirmation of it; this absence is stated at the scope searched. PROCESS captured from the current online Student Handbook (tamiu.edu/handbook), read via direct browser navigation since each numbered section is a collapsed accordion panel that must be expanded to read (Articles 7, 8 and 10 each required expanding the relevant section headings individually; confirmed reproducible, not a one-time render). SUBSTANTIVE FINDING, reproduced rather than resolved: the evidentiary standard is stated as "a preponderance of the evidence" in Article 8.03 (the general non-academic-conduct standard) and as "a preponderance of the information standard" in Article 10's own introductory paragraph for academic-conduct cases specifically — both phrasings are first-party and current, and the page quotes both rather than picking one. ADVISOR AND RECORDING: advisors may attend and communicate privately with the student but may not speak for the student or address the Honor Council; a single institution-owned recording is made only of Honor Council appeal hearings, not of the earlier faculty-level meeting, which the sources do not address for recording either way. RECORD: no special academic-dishonesty transcript notation located anywhere in the sources (distinct from several other built pages in this collection); the sanction itself is ordinarily a course grade, and "Honor Code Probation" can separately restrict a student's ability "to receive an official transcript" while active — recorded as a distinct, narrower finding rather than conflated with a notation. OFFICE: Office of Student Affairs (OSA), Student Center (STC) 226, 5201 University Boulevard, Laredo, TX 78041, (956) 326-2265, studentaffairs@tamiu.edu — address, phone and email confirmed identically in the footer of every Handbook article page fetched this pass. OMBUDS: none located; "ombudsperson," "ombuds," and "student advocacy" searches across tamiu.edu returned nothing beyond the Office of Student Affairs' own "Student Services" branch, which is housed inside the same office that administers the conduct process (not a separate or independent body) and is scoped to emergency/outreach case management (e.g. Dusty's Food Pantry, emergency grants) rather than to academic-integrity or conduct accompaniment; not used for this row. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Traces to tools/packets/tamiu-packet.txt with zero fidelity failures; gated in tools/fidelity-gate.txt. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-14).

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: Turnitin — Texas A&M International University → https://web.archive.org/web/20261015125959/https://www.tamiu.edu/distance/technology/turnitin.shtml; tamiu.edu/handbook — Article 7 → https://web.archive.org/web/20261015130032/https://www.tamiu.edu/handbook/article-07.shtml; tamiu.edu/handbook — Article 8 → https://web.archive.org/web/20261015130103/https://www.tamiu.edu/handbook/article-08.shtml; Article 10, Academic Conduct Proceedings → https://web.archive.org/web/20261015130136/https://www.tamiu.edu/handbook/article-10.shtml; Welcome to TAMIU's OIT → https://web.archive.org/web/20261015130208/https://www.tamiu.edu/oit/; tamiu.edu/studentaffairs → https://web.archive.org/web/20261015130241/https://www.tamiu.edu/studentaffairs/.

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