Tarleton State University.

What Tarleton's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"The accused student has the opportunity to be assisted by an advisor s/he chooses, at his/her own expense." The advisor may not be an attorney "unless the accused student is also the subject of a pending subsequent criminal matter arising out of the same circumstances or the charges include one or more charge of sexual harassment, sexual misconduct, dating violence, domestic violence, stalking, or hazing." On recording, the Code's unauthorized-recording rule names "recording administrative meetings with University officials" as an example of recording that requires the other person's consent. — Student Conduct Code §6.3.3, §5.15 (no revision date shown on the page; retrieved Sep 19, 2026) · Student Conduct Code

What follows on the record

"The file of a student found to have violated University rules shall be retained as a student conduct record for no less than five years from the date of the student's graduation or from the last day of the last semester the student is enrolled... Student conduct records may be retained for as long as administratively valuable or permanently if the student was expelled, suspended or blocked from reenrollment and/or in situations that may result in future litigation." No transcript-notation provision was located; the only transcript-adjacent item is "[w]ithholding of official transcripts or degree" among the sanctions a University-level outcome may impose. Disclosure to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards is not stated in the sources reviewed. — Student Conduct Code §9.1, §7.2

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

Tarleton's Academic Integrity page (Dean of Students, retrieved Sep 19, 2026) describes two tracks. The academic track, run entirely by the instructor:

Source: Academic Integrity — Dean of Students. The Faculty Handbook points that appeal to the university catalog's general Academic Appeals procedure, which states an evidentiary standard is not named for this track and instead sets timing: "A student who wishes to appeal a decision of a faculty member or staff member of a department should ask for a review by that person within 60 days of the originating event unless the departmental procedures specifically allow additional time. The person is expected to give the student a response within 30 days... If the person is unavailable, if a response is not made within 30 days, or if the student is unsatisfied with the response, then the student should inform the department head of the appeal." A student may then appeal to the department head (120 days), the college dean (30 days), and finally the Provost (30 days), each window running from notification of the prior decision. Sources: Faculty Handbook, Chapter 3 ("Student academic appeals are handled according to guidelines outlined in the university catalog"), and Academic Catalog 2026-27 — Academic Affairs, Academic Appeals (retrieved Sep 19, 2026).

Instances of academic dishonesty that are not classroom-related, or that proceed to a University-level sanction, run under the Student Conduct Code, which sets an explicit evidentiary standard for that track:

Source: Student Conduct Code §6.2, §6.3.4, §8.1, §8.2.2 (no revision date shown on the page; retrieved Sep 19, 2026). The Code lists "[a]cademic dishonesty," including plagiarism and unauthorized collaboration, among its Dishonesty violations (§5.1.5), which is why its evidentiary-standard, advisor and appeal provisions are reproduced here rather than treated as a general-conduct document unrelated to academic integrity. What any of this means for a 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 133 — 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 (Instructional Technology, the AI Council's guidance/tools/resources pages, the Center for Educational Excellence's AI resource page, the Dean of Students' Academic Integrity page) found Turnitin and Respondus documented as Canvas-supported tools with no page stating whether Turnitin's AI-writing indicator is enabled; not disqualified, since a detector (Turnitin) is documented in current use and no institutional page recommends against or discloses it as disabled — the finding is an inventory gap, not an absence. Process captured from two documents read in full: the Dean of Students' Academic Integrity page (academic-sanction track, faculty-run) and the Student Conduct Code (University-sanction track, which lists "academic dishonesty" among its Dishonesty violations at §5.1.5 and supplies the preponderance standard, advisor rule, recording rule, sanctions and appeals used above). Neither page carries a visible revision or effective date; both were read in full rather than searched piecemeal given their length. The academic-track appeal window (60/30/120/30 days) was traced through the Faculty Handbook's cross-reference into the Academic Catalog 2026-27's Academic Appeals section, confirmed against the catalog's own HTTP Last-Modified header (2026-09-08) and read from the live page rather than the Faculty Handbook PDF, which does not itself state a window. OMBUDS: only a Faculty Ombuds was located (djones@tarleton.edu, Business Building 163) — serves faculty exclusively per its own page and is excluded here as out of scope for a student reader; the Dean of Students' own student-resources page was checked and names no ombudsperson or general student-advocacy office, so the docket records none located rather than substituting the faculty-only office. CAPTURE NOTE: the historic Turnitin-specific page at online.tarleton.edu/fac_dev/applications/Turnitin/index.htm no longer resolves (DNS failure on this subdomain); the current, live confirmation of Turnitin used instead is tarleton.edu/oiss. Fidelity: check-fidelity.py found 1 initial failure — the office email, published only as an href on the tarleton.edu/dean-of-students/ landing page ("Send us a Message" link text, not the literal address) and so absent from a plain-text capture; resolved by adding the Temporary Absence Request page as an eleventh source, where the same address appears as literal visible text ("you may email it at a later date to deanofstudentsoffice@tarleton.edu"), and adding the corresponding source-map row. Traces to tools/packets/tarleton-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.