University of Idaho.

Detection status: Turnitin confirmed integrated into Canvas for plagiarism/similarity checking; a knowledge-base article titled How to enable Plagiarism & AI Detection with "Turnitin" links to Turnitin's own AI-writing-detection FAQ, but its own instructions describe only the Similarity-report workflow — read as named, not confirmed enabled; the same article quotes UI's Chief Data & AI Officer cautioning that detection tools are "controversial" and that non-native-English writing "gets flagged more often"
Office in these sources: Office of the Dean of Students · Teaching & Learning Center Room 232, 875 Perimeter Dr. MS 2431, Moscow, ID 83844-2431 · 208-885-6757 · askjoe@uidaho.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: Ombuds Office (FSH 3820) · ombuds@uidaho.edu — confirmed independent of the Dean of Students Office and open to "any employee or student"; confidential, impartial, and not an advocate for either party. No current phone or location listing for this office was reachable first-party this pass; email is what the governing policy itself publishes.
Sources last checked: Oct 3, 2026

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

These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case — course syllabi may also set AI-use rules, and the Student Code of Conduct notes that individual instructors may add their own academic-integrity expectations. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

Turnitin is named for plagiarism and AI detection; the body instructions confirm only plagiarism checking

University of Idaho's Office of Information Technology publishes a knowledge-base article, How to enable Plagiarism & AI Detection with "Turnitin" (modified Sep 9, 2026; retrieved Oct 3, 2026), which opens with a first-party caution before any setup instructions:

"Detection tools are controversial and are often one step behind the most advanced generative AI models. There are countless simple tools and strategies (see below) to get around these detectors, and research has repeatedly found that writing by non-native English speakers gets flagged more often." "When you suspect undisclosed use, ask the student about the work. Have them walk you through a decision they made, or explain a passage, or talk about what they cut from the final draft." — Ben Hunter, Chief Data & AI Officer, UI

The article's actual instructions, under the heading "Plagiarism Detection in CANVAS," describe only the Similarity-checking workflow: "Turnitin is integrated into CANVAS and can be used by instructors to check student work for originality and potential plagiarism," with steps for enabling "Turnitin Similarity" review and reading a "similarity percent" in SpeedGrader. No step for viewing or enabling an AI-generated-writing score is given; the article instead links out to Turnitin's own "AI writing detection capabilities FAQs" under "Learn more about Turnitin" rather than restating what, if anything, that feature does at UI. Read as named in the article's title, not confirmed enabled in its own body. Source: How to enable Plagiarism & AI Detection with "Turnitin" — University of Idaho Knowledge Base.

A named-vendor sweep of uidaho.edu (SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep (the AI @ UI hub, the OIT Knowledge Base's Artificial Intelligence category and its "Guidance for Artificial Intelligence" article, the Student Code of Conduct pages, and the Center for Teaching & Learning's AI-policy syllabus-language template) found no detector beyond Turnitin. NOT DISQUALIFIED: named, not disabled or recommended against; OIT's separate "Guidance for Artificial Intelligence" article (data-classification and procurement guidance, retrieved Oct 3, 2026) addresses approved AI tools and data security rather than detection, and names no detector. The syllabus-language template offers instructors a choice of AI-prohibited, permission-required, or permission-with-citation course policies, naming no detection tool in any of the three.

02Published process

What the Student Code of Conduct (FSH 2300) says about how cases proceed

Who may be present: "Any student may have an Advisor present at any time during any interview, meeting, or proceeding under the Code, but the Advisor's role is to advise the student, not to speak for the student or make any presentation on behalf of the student." Hearings before the Student Conduct Board are closed: "The only people allowed to be present during the hearing are the parties, each individual party's Advisor, the investigator(s), the Administrator, members of the Hearing Panel, and others only if requested by DOS." On recording: "The University will make a single record of all hearings. Hearing Panel deliberations are not recorded." Source: FSH 2300, §§G-1 and F-7(f)(10)(b)-(c).
What follows on the record: "Disciplinary outcomes other than suspension, expulsion or revocation or withholding of a degree will not be made part of the student's permanent academic record but will become part of the student's disciplinary record." Such outcomes "will be expunged from the student's disciplinary record seven years after final disposition of the case unless the University is legally required to maintain them for a further time." No separate transcript-notation rule distinct from this record/expungement rule is stated. Source: FSH 2300, §F-10 (Outcomes).

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

University of Idaho's own Student Code of Conduct landing page states the relationship between an instructor's own academic penalty and the formal conduct process (retrieved Oct 3, 2026): "If a student is found responsible for academic dishonesty, the instructor may assign an academic penalty, which is separate from any disciplinary action taken by the Dean of Students Office under the Student Code of Conduct." Source: Understanding U of I's Student Code of Conduct. FSH 2300 itself (Owner: Dean of Students; last updated April 1, 2025) states the evidentiary standard and the appeal path:

"The University bears the burden of proving that a student engaged in misconduct by a preponderance of evidence. A "preponderance of evidence" means that quantity and quality of evidence which, when fairly considered, produces the stronger impression, and has the greater weight, and is more convincing as to its truth than the evidence in opposition... Formal rules of evidence applied in courtroom proceedings do not apply to this process." On response review (the Code's appeal mechanism): "Any party may submit a response to the Administrator's, Hearing Officer's, or Hearing Panel's final decision... The response must be filed no later than five days after the decision is delivered to the parties." That review "will be limited to a review of the decision, the final report, any written material considered in the decision, the recording of the hearing held before the Hearing Panel, and- any written materials submitted with the response" (the source's own hyphenation, reproduced as published).

Source: FSH 2300 — Student Code of Conduct and Resolution Process, §§B-5 and F-7(d)-(f). What these quotations mean for any particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
How to enable Plagiarism & AI Detection with "Turnitin" (OIT Knowledge Base; detection status)	support.uidaho.edu — Turnitin KB article
Guidance for Artificial Intelligence (OIT Knowledge Base; data security/procurement, not detection)	support.uidaho.edu — AI Guidance
Understanding U of I's Student Code of Conduct (academic-dishonesty overview, instructor-penalty relationship)	uidaho.edu — Academic Integrity
FSH 2300 — Student Code of Conduct and Resolution Process (quoted for standard of proof, advisor, recording, response review, and records)	uidaho.edu — FSH 2300
FSH 3820 — Ombuds Office (confidentiality, independence, scope)	uidaho.edu — FSH 3820
Office of the Dean of Students (contact)	uidaho.edu — Dean of Students

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

2026-10-03 — Page created. Cold build; no prior CANDIDATES.md or procedure-facts.json research to reuse. 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 (the AI @ UI hub, the OIT Knowledge Base's Artificial Intelligence category, the Student Code of Conduct pages, and the AI-policy syllabus template) found Turnitin confirmed integrated into Canvas for plagiarism/similarity checking only; the OIT Knowledge Base article's own title names "Plagiarism & AI Detection with Turnitin," but its body instructions describe exclusively the Similarity-report workflow and link out to Turnitin's own vendor FAQ for AI-writing detection rather than describing a UI-specific setup or visibility rule — read as named, not confirmed enabled, the same disposition used at csuohio for a comparably worded bare-list case. NOT DISQUALIFIED: named with a strong first-party caution (quoted from UI's own Chief Data & AI Officer), not disabled or recommended against. MISLEADING AI-SUMMARY TRAP AVOIDED: generic web-search AI summaries repeatedly asserted specific UI detection claims ("the University employs AI detection software such as Turnitin," "ZeroGPT," "leverages Turnitin's integration... to provide instructors with AI detection capabilities") sourced to generic third-party Canvas/AI-detection explainer blogs with no connection to uidaho.edu, not to any University of Idaho page; none of those claims is used here, and the actual first-party KB article was fetched and read directly instead. STALE/UNREACHABLE SOURCES: the CETL "AI Guidelines" page (webpages.uidaho.edu/cetl/ai-teaching-learning.asp) redirects to an internal SharePoint site (vandalsuidaho.sharepoint.com) not reachable by this pass's unattended transport; the Turnitin KB article's own "AI in the Classroom" link points to the same internal SharePoint space — neither quoted, both noted rather than chased further. PROCESS: FSH 2300 (Owner: Dean of Students; last updated April 1, 2025) supplies the preponderance-of-evidence standard, an Advisor right (present but may not speak for the student), a single institutional recording of Student Conduct Board hearings (deliberations not recorded), a five-day response-review window limited to the existing record, and a seven-year disciplinary-record expungement period for outcomes short of suspension/expulsion/degree revocation — no separate transcript-notation rule is stated beyond that record/expungement provision, recorded as a scope limit rather than filled in. The Student Code of Conduct's own landing page confirms an instructor-level "academic penalty" runs separately from the Dean of Students' formal process. OFFICE: Office of the Dean of Students, Teaching & Learning Center Room 232, 875 Perimeter Dr. MS 2431, Moscow, ID 83844-2431, 208-885-6757, askjoe@uidaho.edu — confirmed first-party via the office's own page fields, not the university switchboard (875 Perimeter Drive / 208-885-6111, which also appears sitewide as the general contact block and was deliberately not used in its place). OMBUDS CONFIRMED, NOT THE DOS TRAP: FSH 3820 (last updated July 1, 2018) establishes an Ombuds Office that reports to the president, is organizationally distinct from the Dean of Students Office that administers the conduct process, and is explicitly confidential, impartial, and "not an advocate for any party" — open to "any employee or student at the UI." Only the office's own email (ombuds@uidaho.edu, published in the policy itself) is used; a phone number and room location circulating on third-party directory-scrape sites (208-885-7668, Carol Ryrie Brink Hall) could not be independently confirmed on a live first-party uidaho.edu page this pass — several guessed URL paths for the office's own contact page resolved to the site's generic homepage shell rather than 404ing or serving distinct content, so the number is not stated on the docket rather than carried from an unverified source. TRANSPORT NOTE: uidaho.edu is a Next.js site; several policy and office pages render only a client-side shell to a plain fetch, with the full content embedded in a `__NEXT_DATA__` JSON script tag — FSH 2300, FSH 3820, and the Dean of Students contact fields were all read this way rather than from the rendered HTML text, and are captured by the recipe's html-text extractor against the same HTML the JSON is embedded in. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-03).

2026-10-07 — 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: How to enable Plagiarism & AI Detection with "Turnitin" — University of Idaho Knowledge Base → https://web.archive.org/web/20261007130616/https://support.uidaho.edu/TDClient/94/Portal/KB/Article/4031/How-to-enable-Plagiarism-AI-Detection-with-Turnitin; FSH 2300 — Student Code of Conduct and Resolution Process → https://web.archive.org/web/20261007130648/https://www.uidaho.edu/policies/fsh/2/2300.

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