University of Louisiana at Lafayette.

What UL Lafayette's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

Not stated in the Code's general procedure (Section 8: Administrative Hearing and Discipline Appeals Hearing, which covers all penalties short of a suspension of ten or more days, deferred suspension, or expulsion — the track most academic-dishonesty sanctions such as a failing grade fall into). A full-participation advisor/advocate right, "including attorneys," is stated explicitly only for violations carrying a suspension of ten or more days or expulsion (§9) and for Discipline Appeals Committee hearings (§10): "The parties have the right to an advisor/advocate of their own choosing, including attorneys." Recording is addressed only for that committee-hearing track: "There will be a single verbatim record, such as an audio recording, for all committee hearings. Deliberations will not be recorded." — Code of Student Conduct, §9(A), §10(D), §10 (approved 8/19/2016; document footer dated "Last Updated 2023 08 25"; retrieved Sep 19, 2026) · Code of Student Conduct

What follows on the record

"All Student Rights and Responsibilities records are maintained by the University for seven (7) years from the time of their creation except those that result in separation (suspension or expulsion, including from housing) which are maintained indefinitely." Transcript notation is stated only for the separation sanctions: suspension is "noted as a Conduct Suspension on the student's official academic transcript," and dismissal and expulsion carry the equivalent "Conduct Dismissal" and "Conduct Expulsion" notations. The academic sanctions specific to scholastic dishonesty — a failing grade in the course or denial of degree — carry no stated transcript notation of their own. Disclosure to graduate programs, employers or licensing boards is not stated in the sources reviewed beyond FERPA-governed release, which the Code limits to certain "crime of violence" or non-forcible sex-offense findings. — Code of Student Conduct, §11(23)–(27), §12(F)

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

The Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities' Academic Conduct & Dishonesty page states the underlying standard (retrieved Sep 19, 2026; no page-stated date):

Source: Academic Conduct & Dishonesty — Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities. Academic Dishonesty is listed among the Code's violation categories ("Violating of the University's Academic Honesty policy"), and its procedure runs through the same Code. The evidentiary standard, from the Administrative Hearing procedure:

Source: Code of Student Conduct, §8(A)(3)–(4), §8(A)(5). The Code's own text leaves ambiguous whether the seven-school-day appeal window applies to every Step 2 appeal or only to the expulsion ground listed immediately before it — reproduced here as written, not resolved. What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-19 — Page created (cold build, Priority A tranche 4, entry 134 — no prior CANDIDATES.md/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 (Office of Distance Learning's EduTools and AI Tools & Use pages, Academic Affairs' generative-AI guidance, the Office of Student Rights & Responsibilities' Academic Conduct & Dishonesty page) found Turnitin's AI writing detection documented as a current Moodle-integrated feature, alongside the same office's own caution that relying on AI detection is "not advisable." NOT DISQUALIFIED: the caution is against reliance, not a statement that the feature is disabled or unavailable — a detector remains documented as available, which the skill's disqualification standard distinguishes from a genuine disable/discourage finding. Process captured from the Code of Student Conduct (PDF, 30 pages, approved 8/19/2016, footer dated "Last Updated 2023 08 25") read in full for its Sections 4 (violation categories, confirming Academic Dishonesty as one), 6 and 8 (general/standard-track procedure, evidentiary standard), 9 (advisor/advocate right for the more severe track), 10 (Discipline Appeals Committee — recording, advisor), 11 (sanctions, including the two academic-dishonesty-specific sanctions of a failing grade and denial of degree), and 12(F) (record retention). GENUINE AMBIGUITY reproduced rather than resolved: §8(A)(4) lists four Step 2 appeal grounds (a–d) and states a seven-school-day filing window in the sentence following ground (d), which names expulsion specifically — the Code's own text does not make clear whether that window governs every Step 2 appeal or only an expulsion-grounded one. SCOPE NOTE, worth flagging for other Section 8/Section 9 splits: the Code's full-participation advisor/advocate right and its recording provision are stated explicitly only for the more severe track (§9, non-academic violations carrying ≥10-day suspension or expulsion) and for Discipline Appeals Committee hearings (§10); the standard Administrative Hearing/Discipline Appeals Hearing track that most academic-dishonesty sanctions (a failing grade, denial of degree) fall into states neither, so the docket records that absence rather than importing the stricter track's language. OMBUDS: a genuine, general-purpose office located and quoted — "an independent and confidential place where students can go for advising and direction," explicitly serving as "a student advocate during the discipline and grade appeals processes," and named as a co-recipient of Step 2 appeal notices in the Code itself (§8(A)(4)). Office: Office of Student Rights and Responsibilities, confirmed from its own page. Fidelity: check-fidelity.py found 3 initial failures — two bulleted-list quotations from the EduTools and AI Tools & Use pages had been assembled into run-on sentences that did not match the source's actual line-by-line list formatting (corrected to quote each list item separately, or to stop the quotation at the list's lead-in and paraphrase the items); and the Code of Student Conduct's record-retention sentence, where pdftotext-raw drops inter-word spaces around a specific run of kerned text ("thetimeoftheircreation") — the recipe's extractor for that source was switched to pdftotext-plain, which spaces the passage correctly, matching the pattern this project documents for PDF extraction quirks. Traces to tools/packets/ullafayette-packet.txt with zero failures. Gated in tools/fidelity-gate.txt. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-20).

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