University of Maine.

What the UMS Student Conduct Code (effective Aug 1, 2025) says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"The Reporting Party and the Responding Party may be accompanied by an Advisor and a Support Person of their choice. Questioning of Parties or witnesses by any Advisor or Support Person will not be permitted, and they may only speak with their advisee, unless otherwise permitted by the presiding Conduct Officer." An Advisor may not serve as a witness or a participant in the Case, per the Code's own definition, and is "not permitted to speak on behalf of their student." On recording: "Only the University is permitted to video or audio record any proceeding under the Code," and after an SCHB hearing's closing statements, "any recording will be stopped" before the panel's closed-session deliberation, which "is not recorded." Source: UMS Student Conduct Code (eff. Aug 1, 2025), Definitions §B and §§IV-V (Conduct Resolution Meeting and Student Conduct Hearing Board provisions).

What follows on the record

Disciplinary Records are retained for seven full calendar years beyond the academic year in which the most recent conduct allegation occurred, per the Code's own records section, but disclosure varies by sanction: records where the most significant sanction is Disciplinary Probation or lower are "only disclosed (in compliance with FERPA) for three years from the date the sanction expired or from the date the student graduates; whichever comes first"; records of students "sanctioned to Disciplinary Suspension or Dismissal... shall be retained and released indefinitely"; other records are released "for 7 years from the date the Case was resolved or the date of graduation; whichever comes first." A transcript letter is used only for Disciplinary Suspension or Dismissal sanctions tied to "a Crime of Violence, including VAWA Offenses" — not stated as applying to academic-integrity cases generally. Source: UMS Student Conduct Code, §§VI (Records) and III (Sanctions).

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

The University of Maine System's Academic Integrity Policy (Board of Trustees Policy Manual §314, effective Sep 1, 2020) governs academic-dishonesty findings directly, and states how it relates to the Student Conduct Code (retrieved Oct 3, 2026):

Where a case is referred to or otherwise proceeds under the Student Conduct Code, that Code supplies the evidentiary standard and appeal path: "Preponderance of the Evidence: A standard that requires a fact or event to have more likely than not occurred, e.g., a greater than fifty percent (50%) likelihood," used at both the Conduct Resolution Meeting and Student Conduct Hearing Board (SCHB) stages. Appeals are limited to three grounds — a substantive or procedural error that substantially impacted the outcome, new evidence not reasonably available earlier, or a sanction "disproportionate to the severity of the violation" — and "must be submitted in writing to the Coordinator of UMS Student Conduct within five (5) full business days after the appealing Party has been emailed the written Determination." Sources: Policy Manual §314 — Academic Integrity and UMS Student Conduct Code, Definitions §T and §V (Appeals). What these quotations mean for any particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

Revision history of this page

2026-10-03 — Page created. Cold build; no prior CANDIDATES.md or procedure-facts.json research to reuse. FIRST UNIVERSITY OF MAINE SYSTEM (UMS) BUILD: both the academic-integrity policy (Board of Trustees Policy Manual §314, effective Sep 1, 2020) and the student conduct process (UMS Student Conduct Code, effective Aug 1, 2025, superseding a 2018 edition still linked from some campus pages) are systemwide, applying "to all courses on all campuses within the System," and name no detector at all — detection status is therefore a campus-specific/CITL-level question, resolved here for UMaine only; future UMS builds should reuse the systemwide Code and Policy §314 for process facts and check each campus's own teaching-center and IT pages separately for detection status, the same division established for the UW System builds in this collection. 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 UMS AI hub, the IT Knowledge Base's Turnitin and Generative AI articles, and the Community Standards office's pages) found Turnitin confirmed under contract for plagiarism/similarity checking via Brightspace. HEADLINE FINDING: UMaine's own CITL "Learning with AI" page states, in the institution's own voice, that Turnitin "claims to have the technology to detect AI-generated text" but that "Assessments of Turnitin's results don't support this claim" and "We are not aware of any vendor who has succeeded" — read carefully as skepticism about AI-detection accuracy, not as a statement that any AI-detection feature has been disabled, turned off, or placed off-limits to instructors (the companion CITL Turnitin support page describes only the similarity/originality workflow and never mentions an AI score at all, so it is also not read as confirming the feature is turned on). NOT DISQUALIFIED on that basis: named with doubt, not disabled or recommended against — the disposition is closer to UW-Eau Claire's documented-but-cautioned pattern than to a clean exclusion. MISLEADING AI-SUMMARY TRAP AVOIDED: a generic web-search summary fabricated a UMaine-specific claim that "Turnitin's AI writing detection indicator is available within Brightspace for UMaine faculty," sourced to unrelated third-party Brightspace/AI-detector explainer blogs rather than to any maine.edu or umaine.edu page; not used here — the actual CITL and IT Knowledge Base pages were fetched and read directly, and neither one makes that claim. PROCESS: the UMS Student Conduct Code (eff. Aug 1, 2025) supplies the Advisor-and-Support-Person right (may not speak for the student), a University-only recording rule with deliberations unrecorded, the preponderance-of-the-evidence standard at both the Conduct Resolution Meeting and Student Conduct Hearing Board stages, a five-business-day appeal window on three named grounds, and a tiered records-retention/disclosure schedule (7-year retention always; 3-year disclosure for probation-or-lower, indefinite for suspension/dismissal, 7-year disclosure otherwise) — the transcript-letter provision is scoped explicitly to Crime-of-Violence/VAWA sanctions and is not stated to apply to academic-integrity cases generally, recorded as a scope limit rather than assumed to extend further. Policy §314 supplies the academic-sanction/disciplinary-sanction split and the referral trigger to the Student Conduct Code for repeated or serious violations. OFFICE: Community Standards, Rights, and Responsibilities, 5748 Memorial Union, Rm 315, Orono, ME 04469, 207-581-1406, communitystandards@maine.edu — confirmed first-party from the office's own homepage, distinct from the UMS-wide Coordinator of UMS Student Conduct role named throughout the Code. OMBUDS/ADVOCACY CHECKED AND NOT FOUND: the only "Ombudsperson" located anywhere on maine.edu is a UMS Human Resources role for retiree health-benefit enrollment, unrelated to students; a "Student Advocacy" page once linked from Student Life (umaine.edu/studentlife/home-old/advocacy) now 404s, and no live first-party page describing a current student-advocacy or ombuds role for conduct cases was located this pass — "None located" is used rather than the retiree role or a dead link. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-03).

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