University of Nebraska Omaha.

What UNO's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

Not stated in the sources reviewed. The Academic Integrity Policy's own Step 1–3 procedure (discussion with the faculty member, mediation, college-committee appeal) does not itself name a right to an advisor or support person, or address recording; Step 3 states only that a college committee "shall function in accordance with the procedural guarantees provided in Section 5.4 of the Bylaws of the Board of Regents," an external document not reviewed here. Source: Academic Integrity — University Policies (Last Revised Feb 10, 2026; retrieved Sep 24, 2026)

What follows on the record

"Records shall be retained in accordance with the records retention schedules of the University of Nebraska. The retention requirements for student records are identified in Schedule 170-17." No transcript-notation or disclosure provision for a course-level academic sanction is stated; expulsion-level cases route to the separate Student Code of Conduct. — Academic Integrity Policy (Last Revised Feb 10, 2026; retrieved Sep 24, 2026) · Academic Integrity — University Policies

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

UNO's Academic Integrity Policy (Effective Apr 6, 2021; Last Revised Feb 10, 2026, adding artificial-intelligence language and procedural clarifications; retrieved Sep 24, 2026) gives faculty discretionary authority to resolve suspected violations directly, in a three-step process:

On mediation and appeal: "either party may request the departmental chair or director to serve as a confidential mediator" (Step 2), and if unresolved, "either party may request the dean of the college to convene an appropriate college standing committee with student representation" (Step 3), each within ten University days of the relevant notice. A sanction resulting in an "F" in the entire course triggers a report to the UNO Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards and initiates separate student-conduct proceedings, which "may be subject to disciplinary action up to and including expulsion under the UNO Student Code of Conduct," with its own appeal rights under that code. Repeat offenses across more than one course likewise trigger student-conduct proceedings regardless of the course-level sanction.

Source: Academic Integrity — University Policies. The policy does not state an evidentiary standard for the faculty member's own determination in Steps 1–3, describing it instead as an exercise of "professional judgment." What any of this means for a particular case is for the institution and its process to determine; these are reproduced so you can read the originals in context.

Revision history of this page

2026-09-24 — Page created. All quotations retrieved this date from the unomaha.edu pages linked beside them; the Academic Integrity Policy displays "Last Revised: 02-10-2026," and the Student Code of Conduct landing page displays "As of August 8, 2024" for the code it links as a PDF (not separately fetched or quoted here). The Faculty Guiding Principles and Division of Continuing Studies pages display no on-page date. Detection-inventory sweep performed: named-vendor sweep of unomaha.edu (Turnitin, Turnitin AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep of the AI at UNO hub, its Faculty and general Guiding Principles pages, and library/academic-technology pages. Turnitin is confirmed by name on one Division of Continuing Studies page as a plagiarism/similarity tool; the Faculty Guiding Principles' caution about "AI detection tools" being unreliable does not name a product, so it is presented as UNO's general first-party caution rather than attributed to Turnitin specifically. NOT DISQUALIFIED: caution against relying solely on a detection tool is not a statement that detection is disabled or recommended against; UNO's own text frames it as "a starting point for discussion," consistent with continued discretionary use. Ombuds/advocacy sweep: no office titled ombuds, ombudsperson, or student advocate was found anywhere on unomaha.edu. Paraphrase-pending: none. Deliberate omission: Section 5.4 of the Board of Regents Bylaws, which the Academic Integrity Policy cites as governing college-committee procedural guarantees at Step 3, was not located or fetched in this review; accompaniment and recording are recorded as not stated in the sources reviewed rather than inferred from that external document. Two office contacts for the same Office of Student Conduct & Community Standards were found with different phone numbers (402-554-2210 in the Academic Integrity Policy's own Additional Contacts section; 402-554-4002 on the Student Code of Conduct landing page, which also adds "Hayden House" as a location); the Academic Integrity Policy's own number is used in the docket, and the discrepancy is recorded here rather than resolved. Internet Archive captures: to be added. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-24).

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