Texas Woman's University.

Detection status: No AI-writing detector, or any specific plagiarism-detection tool, is named on TWU's own Academic Integrity Policy, Student Code of Conduct, or IT help-desk pages across a named-vendor and category sweep; Turnitin is confirmed only as an optional similarity-checking tool instructors may choose to use
Office in these sources: Student Accountability and Growth Education (SAGE) Center · Brackenridge Hall, G60, Denton, TX 76204-5379 · 940-898-2968 · SAGE@twu.edu · twu.edu/sage
Ombuds or advocacy office: None located on the institution's own pages in this review.
Sources last checked: Sep 28, 2026

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

Texas Woman's University'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 set additional expectations, and TWU's own Academic Integrity Policy notes that a student's obligations follow "all other provisions of the Student Code of Conduct" as well. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

No AI-writing detector is named as deployed at Texas Woman's University

Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin, Turnitin AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and category sweep (the IT Service Center's Turnitin knowledge-base article, the Faculty Handbook's Academic Integrity page, the Academic Integrity Policy itself, and the Student Code of Conduct) found Turnitin confirmed only as a similarity-checking tool, and found no first-party statement that any AI-writing detector is enabled or in use.

TWU's IT Service Center describes the tool in similarity-checking terms only (retrieved Sep 28, 2026):

"Turnitin is an electronic text matching system that compares text in a student assignment against a database of sources."

Source: Turnitin — TWU IT Service Center. The Faculty Handbook's Academic Integrity page — instructor-facing, and quoted here because it states the rule that governs whether an instructor may use the tool at all (page dated Aug 3, 2022; retrieved Sep 28, 2026) — states that use is optional:

"Use of antiplagiarism tools is optional, but if they are used, they must be used according to the policies and guidelines set forth in this document." "Student work submitted to Turnitin by an instructor will use an alias for the student name, and delete any personally-identifiable information." "If students do not consent to having their original work archived in the antiplagiarism tool databases, individual faculty members may use alternative assignments or use other, more traditional, methods for detecting plagiarism."

Source: Academic Integrity — Faculty Handbook. Neither this page nor TWU's own Academic Integrity Policy (URP 06.210, Publication Date 07/15/2021) nor its Student Code of Conduct (URP 06.200, Publication Date 07/02/2021, most recently revised Oct 23, 2025) names Turnitin's AI-writing indicator, or any other AI-text detector, anywhere in either document's text.

02Published procedure

What TWU's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: The Student Code of Conduct defines an "Advisor" as "a person who provides support to the student(s) throughout the conduct process," who "may only confer with and advise a student" and "may be any individual (including an attorney) selected by the student." Where a case reaches a formal hearing, the notice of hearing states "[t]he right to appear in person and have an advisor of choice at the hearing" among the rights afforded. Formal hearings are recorded: "The hearing will be recorded by the hearing officer/panel chair and this recording will become an official part of the case record and available to all parties in the event of an appeal. No other camera or recording equipment is permitted of any kind." Lower-level (Level One/Two) academic-integrity matters are instead handled informally between the instructor, the student, and the SAGE Center, without a formal hearing.
What follows on the record: Transcript notation is stated only for the most serious outcomes: a Level Four academic-integrity finding results "in the notation of 'Disciplinary Expulsion' on the student's transcript," and a Suspension under the general Code "will be noted on the student's University transcript for the duration of suspension." On retention, conduct records are "subject to FERPA protections" and "will be retained as a conduct record for a minimum of seven years from the date of the letter providing notice of the final conduct action," and may be expunged by the Dean of Students "for good cause" on written petition. On disclosure: "When students sign a release offered by internal entities […] or when a student or former student signs a release offered by external entities (graduate schools, prospective employers, etc.), this release allows the University to release student disciplinary information to these parties" — disclosure is release-based, not automatic.

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 (URP 06.210; retrieved Sep 28, 2026), on the evidentiary standard and the informal-resolution process for lower-level violations:

"'Preponderance of Evidence' Evidentiary standard used to determine whether a violation has occurred. (i.e.: evidence provided demonstrates that it is more likely than not that the Responding Party violated the Student Code of Conduct and/or Academic Integrity Policy)." "Once the faculty member identifies an alleged issue of academic dishonesty, the faculty member will contact the respondent/student to arrange a meeting, during which the student will be informed of the suspected violation and the sanction the Faculty Member will be recommending." "If the student pleads 'not responsible,' the OCCS will investigate and adjudicate the incident as described in the Student Code of Conduct. Just as students may submit additional information and have an advocate present during this process, academic components may submit additional information and expert perspectives, and referring faculty may also have an advocate present during hearings."

Violations are classified into four levels. Level One cases are "primarily viewed as 'teaching opportunities.'" and administered by the instructor; Level Four represents "the most serious breaches" of academic integrity, heard by an OCCS hearing board, typically resulting in "permanent expulsion from the University." From the Student Code of Conduct's own Appeal Procedures (URP 06.200; retrieved Sep 28, 2026):

"Appeals are limited to one or more of the following grounds:" "The sanction is substantially disproportionate to the offense." "The procedures provided for in the Code were not materially followed, resulting in significant prejudice." "New relevant evidence is available, which in the exercise of reasonable diligence could not have been produced at the time of the hearing." "The decision is not supported by substantial evidence." "Appeal petitions must be submitted by the involved student party […] via completed appeal submission form and written statement and received within five days from the date of the original decision."

Source: URP 06.210 — Academic Integrity and URP 06.200 — Student Code of Conduct. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
URP 06.210 — Academic Integrity Policy	public.powerdms.com/TWU1 — URP 06.210 (Publication Date 07/15/2021; retrieved Sep 28, 2026)
URP 06.200 — Student Code of Conduct	public.powerdms.com/TWU1 — URP 06.200 (Publication Date 07/02/2021; revised 08/25/2021, 09/06/2023, 10/23/2025; retrieved Sep 28, 2026)
Academic Integrity — Faculty Handbook (instructor-facing)	twu.edu/faculty-handbook — Academic Integrity (page dated Aug 3, 2022; retrieved Sep 28, 2026)
Turnitin — IT Service Center knowledge base	servicecenter.twu.edu — Turnitin (retrieved Sep 28, 2026)
Academic Integrity — Student Handbook	twu.edu/student-handbook/academic-integrity (page dated May 29, 2024; retrieved Sep 28, 2026)
Student Accountability and Growth Education (SAGE) Center	twu.edu/sage · Brackenridge Hall, G60, Denton, TX 76204-5379 · 940-898-2968 · SAGE@twu.edu (retrieved Sep 28, 2026)
Faculty Ombudsperson (serves faculty and professional librarians only)	twu.edu/ombudsperson (retrieved Sep 28, 2026)
Dean of Students — Student Advocacy	twu.edu/dean-of-students (retrieved Sep 28, 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

2026-09-28 — Page created by a scheduled, unattended build pass. All quotations retrieved this date from twu.edu pages linked beside them and from the URP 06.210 and URP 06.200 PDFs served through TWU's PowerDMS policy portal (public.powerdms.com/TWU1). Detection-inventory sweep performed: named-vendor sweep (Turnitin, Turnitin 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 Service Center knowledge base, Faculty Handbook, Student Handbook, the Academic Integrity Policy, and the Student Code of Conduct) came back empty of any first-party statement that an AI-text detector is deployed; Turnitin is confirmed only as an optional similarity-checking tool, with student aliasing and a consent-based opt-out for archiving. NOT DISQUALIFIED: this is an empty inventory, not a documented deactivation or a recommendation against detection. PROCESS SOURCE: URP 06.210's own four-level violation structure and its Section IV procedural exceptions, read together with URP 06.200 (the Student Code of Conduct) for the formal hearing rights, appeal grounds/window, transcript notation, and records provisions that URP 06.210 incorporates by reference rather than restating. A claim seen only in third-party search-result summarization -- that faculty must report a violation within 30 days -- was checked directly against both PDFs' own text and not found in either; it is not used on this page. SUBSTANTIVE FINDING kept distinct by level: transcript notation is stated only for a Level Four (permanent expulsion) academic-integrity finding and for a general-Code Suspension; no notation is stated for Level One through Three academic-integrity sanctions, which the Policy describes as course-level (grade/assignment) consequences. OFFICE: the Student Accountability and Growth Education (SAGE) Center's contact (Brackenridge Hall G60, Denton, TX; 940-898-2968; SAGE@twu.edu) is published on its own landing page. OMBUDS/ADVOCACY CHECKED, NONE FOUND FOR STUDENTS: TWU's Faculty Ombudsperson page states its mission is "to serve as a resource to all faculty members and professional librarians" -- faculty-scoped, not a student resource. The Dean of Students' Student Advocacy program is student-facing but names no academic-integrity scope among its stated services and does not describe itself as confidential, independent, or neutral; neither was substituted for an ombuds, and docket states none located. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Subreddit demand scan not run (outside this run's research method). Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-28).

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