The College of New Jersey.

What TCNJ's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

The Academic Integrity Policy defines an "Advisor" as "a person chosen by either an accused student or a student presenting information in support of a complaint to assist him or her with any hearing preparations. The advisor may not attend or participate in any hearing proceedings." The companion Procedural Standards restate this: "advisors may assist the student with preparing for any hearings. However, advisors cannot be present or consulted during hearings." Recording is addressed only for the All-College Academic Integrity Board: "There will be a single verbatim record, such as a digital recording, of all ACAIB hearings. Deliberations will not be recorded." No recording provision is stated for a hearing conducted by a single Academic Integrity Officer.

What follows on the record

A failing-grade sanction carries a transcript notation: "Record a grade of F for the course that will be calculated into the student's GPA and place a notation on the student's academic transcript stating that this F was given as a sanction for academic dishonesty." A notation may later be removed: "One calendar year after the finding a student may petition for administrative deletion of the notation." Suspension and expulsion are also noted on the transcript and the disciplinary record is retained indefinitely; a failing-course sanction's file is kept five years after separation. Third-party disclosure is limited to students who received a failing-course grade, pending suspension, suspension, or expulsion, and generally requires the student's FERPA waiver.

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 College community, including students, may file a complaint; faculty members are required to report known possible violations, though they "may consult with the AIO in their school prior to reporting a complaint." A faculty complaint is submitted to the Academic Integrity Administrator (AIA) in Academic Affairs through the Symplicity conduct-software package; the student is notified through their College email address. Source: Academic Integrity Procedural Standards (retrieved Oct 14, 2026).

An Academic Integrity Officer (AIO) investigates and either holds the hearing or refers the case to the All-College Academic Integrity Board (ACAIB); referral to the ACAIB is mandatory whenever suspension or expulsion are possible sanctions. Both an AIO and the ACAIB decide "on the basis of whether it is more likely than not that the student charged violated the Academic Integrity Policy" — the Policy's own evidentiary standard, stated identically at both levels. Formal rules of evidence "such as are applied in criminal or civil court" are expressly not used.

Sanctions, alone or combined, range from loss of privilege and resubmission through a diminished or failing grade, pending suspension, suspension, and expulsion; the AIO or ACAIB "may consider any prior academic integrity violations when assigning sanctions." A student found responsible is afforded a single appeal, in writing, "within five business days of the date of the written decision," on one or more of four stated grounds — process review, information review, sanction review, or new information not known at the time of the original hearing. An appeal of an AIO decision goes to the Chief Academic Integrity Officer (or the Provost, if the CAIO served as the AIO); an appeal of an ACAIB decision, including every suspension or expulsion, goes to the Provost. "The decision of the individual reviewing the submitted appeal is final and conclusive." Source: Academic Integrity Procedural Standards. 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 252. 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) and category sweep (IT Services software catalogue, CETL's Artificial Intelligence guide, the Academic Integrity Policy and its companion documents, the School of Business AI hub, the 2024 AI Task Force white paper) found no AI-text detector named anywhere on tcnj.edu as deployed, disabled, or recommended against — a genuinely unresolved inventory, not a disqualification, since nothing found recommends against detection either. Process captured from the current Academic Integrity Policy (ccs.tcnj.edu's PolicyStat export, Last Revised 4/16/2024, retrieved 2026-10-14 — the live tcnj.policystat.com portal itself sits behind a Duo/SSO login and was not used) and its companion Academic Integrity Procedural Standards (PDF, retrieved 2026-10-14): the "more likely than not" evidentiary standard at both the AIO and ACAIB levels, the advisor restricted to pre-hearing preparation only ("may not attend or participate in any hearing proceedings"), ACAIB-only hearing recording, the five-business-day appeal window on four stated grounds, the failing-grade transcript notation and its one-year petition for deletion, and the suspension/expulsion indefinite-retention rule. The companion "Violations of Academic Integrity" PDF on the documents page is a 2015 Word-to-PDF export (file metadata dated Sep 27, 2015) and was not relied on for the current AI-use examples quoted in passing on this page's lede; the current HTML version at academicintegrity.tcnj.edu/?p=83 was used instead and is the version linked. OFFICE: two named contacts on the Academic Integrity site — Tammy Dieterich, Vice Provost for Academic Engagement and Academic Integrity Administrator (the Policy's own "first contact for academic integrity complaints"), and James Taylor, PhD, Chief Academic Integrity Officer; no office-specific address or room number is published for either, only TCNJ's general campus address. OMBUDS: none located; the Dean of Students unit's own page was read directly and describes the Office of Student Conduct as an adjudicating office ("impose sanctions if the student is found responsible"), not an advocate, and names no ombudsperson; a "Student Advocacy Advisory Team" co-chaired by the Dean of Students was located but is scoped to student activism and campus-protest liaison work, not to academic-integrity or conduct cases, and is not used here. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Deliberate omission: the Academic Integrity Flow Chart PDF (on the documents page) was not independently read, since the Policy and Procedural Standards PDFs already state the process in prose and the Flow Chart is a visual restatement of the same companion documents. 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: Software for Home Use / IT Services catalogue → https://web.archive.org/web/20261015130628/https://tcnj.teamdynamix.com/TDClient/1798/Portal/KB/ArticleDet?ID=156121.

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