University of North Alabama.

What the Academic Honesty policy and Code of Student Conduct say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

At a student conduct conference or University Student Conduct Board (USCB) hearing, a student has the right "[t]o have an advisor present," but "the advisor may not participate in presenting the case, question witnesses, or make statements during the conference," and "may not act as legal counsel" — "[a]n attorney may be present only if the student has been charged with a felony offense." Recording is not addressed anywhere in the Code reviewed. — Code of Student Conduct · Student Rights and Responsibilities (Code of Student Conduct)

What follows on the record

The Academic Honesty policy and Code of Student Conduct do not state a transcript-notation rule. The Code addresses only re-enrollment: "If sanctioned, a hold may be placed on the student's ability to re-enroll [and/or obtain official transcripts and/or graduate] and all sanctions must be satisfied prior to re-enrollment eligibility" — the bracketed clause appears bracketed in the source document itself. — Code of Student Conduct · Student Rights and Responsibilities (Code of Student Conduct)

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

UNA's process for a classroom-level academic-honesty allegation runs separately from its general student-conduct hearings. From the Academic Honesty policy (catalog.una.edu; retrieved Oct 11, 2026):

If the student disagrees, the policy sets an escalating mediation ladder rather than a single hearing: the student may appeal first to the department chair, then to the college dean, then to the Provost and Executive Vice President for Academic Affairs, who "may, at their discretion, choose either to affirm the proposed action, to refer the case to the Office of Student Conduct for further review, or to dismiss the matter depending on the merits of the case." A repeated pattern of academic dishonesty can bring additional penalties, "including removal from the University." No evidentiary standard (such as a preponderance) is named in the Academic Honesty policy itself. Where a case is referred to the Office of Student Conduct, the Code of Student Conduct's own evidentiary standard governs: "Preponderance of evidence is the level of proof used in administrative hearings. This requires proof above probable cause, but less than that to prove beyond a reasonable doubt" — in practice, whether it is "more than likely than not (over 50%)" that the person is responsible, reproduced as the source itself phrases it. A student may appeal a Student Conduct sanction "within three (3) business days from the date of receipt of the decision," to the Vice President for Student Affairs or a designated Appeal Review Officer, who issues "a written decision and rationale to the Director of Student Conduct within ten (10) business days." Source: Academic Honesty and Student Rights and Responsibilities (Code of Student Conduct). 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

2026-10-11 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the una.edu and catalog.una.edu pages linked beside them; none of the three cited documents displays an on-page effective or revision date. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI writing indicator specifically, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) found one first-party sentence, in the Generative AI Policy, cautioning against sole reliance on AI-detection software; its reference list separately links Vanderbilt University's own 2023 statement disabling Turnitin's AI detector, which names Vanderbilt's decision, not UNA's, and is not treated as evidence about UNA's deployment. UNA's Educational Technology Services page on Turnitin Feedback Studio inside Canvas (una.edu/ets/instructional-support/turnitin.html, also indexed at a /ctl/ path) returned HTTP 500 on a direct, dated curl fetch and rendered a blank page on a direct browser read, both this pass; it is listed nowhere on this page because nothing could be read from it, not even a title. The Academic Honesty catalog page is hosted under the Graduate Catalog path; a parallel address under the Undergraduate Catalog returned 404 on a direct fetch, and the undergraduate catalog's own landing page could not be navigated to a matching entry through its table of contents this pass. The graduate page's policy is treated as applying university-wide on the strength of the undergraduate catalog's own general provision, read directly: "All university policies and procedures are applicable to all students regardless of location, modality, or status." Category sweep covered the Code of Student Conduct in full (Student Rights and Responsibilities.docx, extracted directly) and a search for a UNA library AI research guide, which returned none. Ombuds search ("ombuds," "ombudsperson," "student advocate," "student advocacy") found the University Ombudsman, confirmed first-party via its own page; it does not list academic integrity among its examples, so the docket records that limit rather than assuming scope. Office contact and Ombudsman contact both confirmed directly on their own pages. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-11).

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