University of Houston-Clear Lake.

What UHCL's Academic Honesty Policy and Faculty Checklist say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"The student may bring an advisor to the hearing for support and advice during the hearing. The advisor may attend the hearing but shall not directly participate in the hearing or enter into discussion with the parties present." Legal counsel requires three working days' notice to the Dean of Students and "cannot be held with such counsel in attendance unless a representative from University of Houston System legal counsel is also present." Recording: "The hearing shall have an audio recording." — Academic Honesty Policy (01.A.05 AP)

What follows on the record

"If the student is found in violation of the Honesty Code and the penalty is anything except suspension or expulsion, the form does not become a part of the student's permanent record or transcript." For suspension or expulsion, "the notation of 'Disciplinary Suspension' or 'Disciplinary Expulsion' is placed on the transcript," removable on request for suspension once the period ends; an expulsion entry "is noted permanently." Records are "considered a student's educational record" under FERPA. — Academic Honesty Policy

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

From the Dean of Students Office's Academic Honesty: Faculty Checklist (retrieved Oct 19, 2026; no on-page revision date beyond the current copyright year): an instructor who suspects a violation must "[n]otify the student of the allegation" and "[i]nvite and encourage the student to meet with you within 10 business days to discuss the alleged violation." If the instructor finds a violation, available sanctions range from requiring a redone assignment through "a final grade penalty for the course," and the instructor may separately "[r]ecommend sanctions beyond the course — referral to Academic Honesty Panel." After a sanction is imposed, "[t]he Dean of Students Office will then inform the student that they have an additional 10 business-day period to either accept or appeal the violation," and if a case is unresolved by the grade-reporting deadline, "you, the instructor, assign a grade of Incomplete ("I") until the appropriate grade can be determined." A case escalates automatically to the Academic Honesty Panel "[i]f you, as the instructor determine that a greater sanction (i.e. probation, suspension or expulsion) should be imposed… or if the student has previously been officially sanctioned."

No evidentiary standard such as preponderance of the evidence is stated in either document; the Faculty Checklist states only that "the burden of proof lies with the instructor/University" and that "all evidence is clear and concise" is required, which is an instruction about evidence quality rather than a named standard of proof. The Academic Honesty Policy (01.A.05 AP; Approved February 10, 2022 — the Dean of Students Office's own Faculty and Staff page currently labels this PDF "(currently under review)") sets the Panel hearing in two phases, violation and then sanction, facilitated by the Dean of Students or a designee who "shall not have a vote." Appeal runs to the Provost: "[w]ithin five working days of the panel's decision, either party… may file an appeal," limited to "[s]ignificant procedural error," material new information, or a sanction "significantly disproportionate to the violation," with a Provost decision due within fifteen working days (twenty if the other party responds). Source: Academic Honesty: Faculty Checklist and Academic Honesty Policy. 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

2026-10-19 — Page created. Priority A tranche 4, entry 278. Cold build (scheduled, unattended); no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts.json research to reuse. Second entry in this pass's batch. All quotations retrieved this date. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI detection component specifically, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) found Turnitin's AI detection confirmed first-party via the OIT student guide "Reviewing a Turnitin Similarity Report (Students)" (PDF, "Rev., 3/14/25"): "Turnitin does evaluate submissions for indicators of AI use... The AI results are provided to Instructors in their Enhanced Originality Report for each student submission." Two companion OIT PDFs reviewed for the same claim — "Submitting a Canvas Assignment with Turnitin" and the faculty-facing "Accessing/Reviewing a Turnitin Originality Report" guide (Rev., 3/13/25) — name Turnitin only for plagiarism/similarity and do not themselves restate the AI-detection point; not treated as a contradiction, since the student guide's statement is the more specific and more recent of the three. Respondus (LockDown Browser/Monitor) confirmed first-party only for exam proctoring, no AI-writing-detection claim; recorded in the sweep, not presented as a detector. EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT: no statement on the evidentiary use of an AI score was located across the OIT guides, the Academic Honesty Policy, or the Faculty Checklist — absence stated at that scope. PROCESS-BASED VERIFICATION: the bounded sweep (the AI @ UHCL library guide's Home, Policies, and For Faculty pages, plus the OIT faculty-support page and the Dean of Students pages already in hand) found only links to third-party pedagogy resources on AI-resistant assignment redesign (an outside toolkit, not a UHCL statement) and no first-party UHCL directive preferring process-based verification over Turnitin's indicator; recorded none-published at this scope. DISQUALIFICATION CHECK: not disqualified — the AI detection component is confirmed actively deployed; nothing swept recommends against it. PROCESS, FROM THE ACADEMIC HONESTY POLICY (01.A.05 AP, Revision 1, Approved 02/10/2022) AND THE FACULTY CHECKLIST: a two-stage structure — an instructor-level resolution within a 10-business-day meeting window, sanctions through a course-grade penalty, escalating automatically to the Academic Honesty Panel for probation/suspension/expulsion recommendations or a repeat violation. ACCOMPANIMENT: a non-participating advisor is permitted; legal counsel requires three working days' notice and triggers a UH System counsel presence requirement. RECORDING: "[t]he hearing shall have an audio recording," copies available to either party at the requesting party's expense; deliberations are not addressed as recorded or not. EVIDENTIARY STANDARD: none named — the Faculty Checklist states only that "the burden of proof lies with the instructor/University," searched directly for "preponderance," "clear and convincing," and "standard of proof," all with zero hits in the full 20-page policy text. RECORDS: transcript notation ("Disciplinary Suspension"/"Disciplinary Expulsion") applies only to suspension or expulsion outcomes, removable by written request after a suspension period ends and permanent for expulsion; lesser sanctions are retained by the Dean of Students and do not reach the transcript; FERPA governs disclosure generally, with no further disclosure provision (graduate-program, employer, or licensing-board) located. The Dean of Students Office's own Faculty and Staff page flags the policy PDF itself as "(currently under review)," recorded here since it bears on how current the quoted provisions are. OFFICE: Dean of Students, SSCB 1.203, 2700 Bay Area Blvd, Box 195, Houston, TX 77058-1002, 281-283-2567, deanofstudents@uhcl.edu — confirmed on the office's own Faculty and Staff page. OMBUDS: a bounded sweep (site search for "ombuds" and "student advocacy," plus the Dean of Students pages already in hand) surfaced the Center for Student Advocacy & Community (CSAC); its own catalog description states it "supports the personal and professional development of UHCL students... by providing essential services that meet basic needs, along with resources and education that foster learning, critical thinking, self-advocacy," and its own SFAC materials describe its Advocacy Services branch as Hawk Pantry, mobile food distribution, and advocacy workshops — a basic-needs and skill-building center, not an office that describes accompanying a student through an academic-integrity case, so it is not presented here as that kind of resource; no other ombuds or case-advocacy office was located. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-19).

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