Thomas Edison State University.

Detection status: Copyleaks confirmed first-party as the plagiarism/AI detection tool integrated into courses on most written assignments; unauthorized AI use is its own named violation and is separately treated as plagiarism under the Code of Conduct
Office in these sources: Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (OSCAI) — contact published is Steve Weinblatt, assistant director of Student Success Initiatives, Office of the Provost and Vice President · sweinblatt@tesu.edu — no office-specific phone published; University general line 609-777-5680, 111 W. State St., Trenton, NJ 08608
Ombuds or advocacy office: None located on the institution's own pages in this review.
Sources last checked: Sep 7, 2026

Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.

TESU's published sources on AI detection and academic integrity, quoted and linked below. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case — course syllabi may also apply, and TESU's own policy leaves the choice between a "learning exercise" and a formal Code of Conduct Review to the mentor and dean. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

Copyleaks is deployed; AI misuse is its own named violation

TESU's Support Resources page names the tool directly (retrieved Sep 7, 2026):

"Copyleaks is a plagiarism and AI detection tool that can help improve your writing and citation skills by providing feedback on the originality of your work." "Copyleaks will help maintain the academic integrity associated with your Thomas Edison State University degree program. The plagiarism and AI detection is integrated in courses when submitting most written assignments." "Once assignments are submitted, Copyleaks scans the content against an expansive database of online resources including web pages, journal articles, research platforms, and a repository of student papers. In addition, Copyleaks examines submissions for patterns in text that may indicate the utilization of AI tools."

Separately, the University's AI Guidelines page states, without naming a tool (retrieved Sep 7, 2026): "Mentors may use a University approved AI detection tool to evaluate the authenticity of submitted assignments." Neither page states in so many words that this is the same deployment as Copyleaks, though Copyleaks is the only AI-detection tool named on any TESU page found in this review.

The Undergraduate Catalog's Code of Conduct defines AI misuse as its own violation, separate from and in addition to plagiarism generally (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026):

"Inappropriate Usage of Artificial Intelligence -- Students may only use AI tools in support of their learning and not as a replacement for their own writing. Unless otherwise specified in the course syllabus, students are prohibited from submitting work that has been generated, either in whole or in part, by artificial intelligence technologies, including but not limited to text generators and paraphrasing tools. Appropriate use to support learning includes idea generation, brainstorming support, proofreading, and tutoring. Any use of AI generation tools during the learning process should be documented in an appendix, bibliography, or other notation within the assignment. As with all other citations, APA format should be used. AI tools are prohibited during any and all proctored assessments. Undocumented and/or inappropriate use of AI generated content including but not limited to the submission of AI-generated work for written assignments as a replacement for original student work will be considered plagiarism."

The catalog's plagiarism definition separately lists "inappropriate use of AI content" as one of its own examples.

A named-vendor sweep of tesu.edu (Turnitin, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep of LMS/integration, IT-catalogue, teaching-center and library pages found no other current AI-text detector; no exam-proctoring vendor for text detection was located either.

Source: Academic Support — Thomas Edison State University; AI Guidelines — Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity; Academic Misconduct — Undergraduate Catalog.

02Published procedure

What TESU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: "The student may have a support person present at the hearing; however, the student is responsible for presenting their information. The student-support person is not permitted to participate directly in the hearing." On recording: "A single audio or video recording of the student hearing will be made by the University. […] Students may not record the hearing but may request a transcript of the hearing or view/listen to the hearing recording at the University." (No on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026.) · Appeal Procedures — Undergraduate Catalog
What follows on the record: Among the sanctions a dean may impose is "Recording academic sanctions on the transcript," one of several sanctions marked that "a student who has received these sanctions for academic misconduct is permanently ineligible to receive any academic award or honor." No further transcript-notation, retention, or third-party-disclosure language was found. (No on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026.) · Academic Misconduct — Undergraduate Catalog

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

The Academic Misconduct catalog page describes two tracks. Where an incident "was an isolated minor oversight or an obvious result of ignorance," the mentor may handle it as a learning exercise in consultation with the dean; otherwise the dean opens a formal review (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026):

"If the violation appears intentional and/or there is more than an isolated incident, the matter will be addressed by the dean. The dean's office will review all documentation and any other relevant aspects of the student's record. If the dean determines that there may be academic misconduct, the dean will initiate a Code of Conduct Review." "When the dean perceives that there may be academic misconduct, the dean or the dean's designee will notify the student of the Code of Conduct Review within 10 business days of the receipt of the allegation and ask the student to provide a written response, if they wish, within 10 business days. The dean will review the matter and make a decision on the alleged violation within 10 business days of receipt of the documentation or the deadline to provide it, including the sanction, if any, to be imposed."

No evidentiary standard (such as a preponderance or clear-and-convincing test) is stated anywhere in the pages reviewed. The full sanction list for academic misconduct reads:

"Written Warning, including that continuation or repetition of prohibited conduct may be cause for additional disciplinary action (not appealable)" "Lower or failing grade for an assignment or examination (not appealable)" "Lower or failing grade for the course" "Lower or failing grade to a ZF*" "Rescinding credits*" "Recording academic sanctions on the transcript*" "Suspension from the University*" "Dismissal from the University*"

The asterisked sanctions carry the permanent-ineligibility consequence quoted above. "The decision on appealable sanctions may be appealed to the Code of Conduct Committee as outlined in the Appeals Procedures."

On appeal, the Appeal Procedures page states: "The student must send a letter to the Code of Conduct Officer (conductofficer@tesu.edu) within 10 business days of receiving the Code of Conduct decision," requesting a hearing; "If the student does not appeal the decision in a timely manner, the decision will become final." A hearing "will be scheduled to take place no sooner than 10 business days and no later than 60 business days from the date of the student's written request for a hearing," and the student is notified "at least 10 business days in advance of the hearing date." Hearings are held virtually by default; an in-person hearing may be requested, "granted" at the Code of Conduct Officer's "sole discretion."

Source: Academic Misconduct — Undergraduate Catalog; Appeal Procedures — Undergraduate Catalog. 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.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
Academic Support (Copyleaks description)	tesu.edu/student-resources/support.php (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026)
AI Guidelines — Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity	tesu.edu — AI Guidelines (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026)
Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity (OSCAI)	tesu.edu — Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity; contact: sweinblatt@tesu.edu (retrieved Sep 7, 2026)
Academic Misconduct (definitions, procedure, sanctions)	tesu.smartcatalogiq.com — Academic Misconduct (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026)
Appeal Procedures	tesu.smartcatalogiq.com — Appeal Procedures (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 7, 2026)

Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.

04Change log

Revision history of this page

2026-09-07 — Page created. First-party material captured from five tesu.edu / tesu.smartcatalogiq.com pages: Academic Support (Copyleaks description), AI Guidelines, the Office of Student Conduct and Academic Integrity landing page, the Academic Misconduct catalog page (definitions, review process, sanctions), and the Appeal Procedures catalog page (hearing process, support-person and recording provisions). None displays an on-page publication or last-updated date; all were retrieved this date. 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 (LMS integrations, IT service catalogue, teaching-center and library guidance) found only Copyleaks as a current, named AI-text detector; a 2016-17 Guided Study handbook and older individual syllabus pages reference Turnitin, but neither is dated within the current catalog period, so they are not presented as evidence of a current deployment and are not quoted. No page states whether the "University approved AI detection tool" language in the AI Guidelines page refers to Copyleaks by name; both facts are presented side by side in section 01 rather than merged. Ombuds/advocacy sweep (ombuds, ombudsman, student advocate, student advocacy) came back empty; recorded as none located. No evidentiary standard is published in any page reviewed. Disqualification check: not disqualified — Copyleaks is documented as currently integrated on most written assignments, with no statement disabling or recommending against its use. Two pages could not be captured through this session's transport: the University's Copyleaks help-center article (tesusupport.zendesk.com, HTTP 403 to a plain fetch) and the catalog's standalone "Sanctions" navigation entry, whose linked URL 404s — the equivalent sanctions text was located instead inside the Academic Misconduct page itself, which is what section 02 cites. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-08).

2026-09-13 — Editorial review. Carrie Schluter read this page in full against its recorded first-party sources and found no change required. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-13).

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