UC Riverside.

What UCR's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"At all stages of this process, the student has the right to an Advisor. […] The Advisor may be any person (including an advocate, attorney, friend, or parent) […] The Advisor's primary role is to provide guidance to the student throughout the process. The Advisor may not speak on behalf of the student." Recording is addressed: "Mechanical or electronic devices for recording or broadcasting shall be excluded from the Administrative Resolution meetings, except when provided as an accommodation." — Interim Student Conduct Procedures (modified pursuant to UC PACAOS Appendix H, dated Jan 1, 2026; retrieved Sep 11, 2026) · Administration of the Standards of Conduct

What follows on the record

"When, as a result of a violation of the Standards, a student is suspended, the fact that suspension was imposed must be posted on the academic transcript for the duration of the suspension. When a student is dismissed, the fact that dismissal was imposed must be posted on the academic transcript permanently." Records "will be maintained by SCAIP for a period of at least seven years from the date of the letter providing notice of final disciplinary action, unless otherwise determined by the Dean of Students." Disclosure beyond the University is addressed only generally: reports "may be shared with other University officials, in accordance with FERPA and University policy." — same procedures document (dated Jan 1, 2026; retrieved Sep 11, 2026) · Administration of the Standards of Conduct

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

UCR's Student Conduct & Academic Integrity Programs (SCAIP) administers academic misconduct on delegation from the Chancellor through the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and, for academic misconduct, through the UCR Academic Senate. Faculty-facing reporting guidance (no on-page date displayed; retrieved Sep 11, 2026) describes the first step as an instructor conversation with the student:

Source: Reporting Academic Misconduct — SCAIP. The Interim Student Conduct Procedures set the evidentiary standard used once a case reaches SCAIP: "The standard used by the University when determining whether a Respondent violated the Standards. This means that it is 'more likely than not' the Respondent violated the Standards." — a preponderance standard. The same procedures set the appeal path: "Appeals of a decision by SCAIP or the SCC shall be addressed to the Dean of Students. Within ten (10) business days of receiving written notification of the decision, the Respondent may submit a written appeal to the Dean of Students." Grounds for appeal are limited elsewhere in the document to new evidence, procedural error, or a disproportionate sanction. Source: Administration of the Standards of Conduct (dated Jan 1, 2026; retrieved Sep 11, 2026). What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-11 — Page created. First-party material captured from teaching.ucr.edu (Turnitin, AI in the Classroom), its.ucr.edu/ai, conduct.ucr.edu (Academic Integrity Policies and Procedures, Reporting Academic Misconduct, Administration of the Standards of Conduct, Contact Us) and ombuds.ucr.edu. None of the fetched pages displayed an on-page date except the Interim Student Conduct Procedures (dated Jan 1, 2026, modified pursuant to UC PACAOS Appendix H). Detector sweep: 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 (teaching-center Turnitin/AI pages, IT Solutions' AI page, SCAIP's conduct procedures) came back with one confirmed deployment — Turnitin as a Canvas-integrated plagiarism/similarity checker — and no confirmed AI-text detector; recorded as a gap rather than a policy position, since no UCR page states a position for or against AI-writing detection specifically. Disqualification check: not disqualified — UCR documents an active plagiarism-checking deployment and no first-party UCR statement recommends against or disables AI-writing detection; the empty AI-detector finding is a publication gap, not a considered decision, distinguishing this page from institutions excluded on a stated anti-detection position. Ombuds/advocacy sweep: UCR's Office of the Ombuds is campus-wide and describes itself as confidential and impartial; it is not described by UCR as serving academic-integrity cases specifically, and that scope is stated as found rather than assumed. Paraphrase-pending: none identified this pass. Deliberate omission: the faculty-facing "Reporting Academic Misconduct" page's full notification timeline is quoted only in part (the 30/14-calendar-day windows for the initial instructor contact); the Interim Procedures' further downstream notice windows (e.g. the 30-business-day Notice and 10-business-day meeting window once SCAIP is involved) were located but not hoisted into section 02, which focuses on the two required questions. Internet Archive captures: not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-11).

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.