University of Southern Indiana.

What USI's Code of Student Behavior says about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"The student and the complainant each have the right to an advisor… This person may not address the hearing officer or hearing board or ask questions of any witnesses." An appeal may draw on "the recorded transcript of the hearing," which indicates hearings are recorded, though the policy does not separately state who may request a copy. — Student Code of Conduct: Academic Integrity (implemented Aug. 15, 2023; retrieved Oct 12, 2026)

What follows on the record

"All written materials will be retained for a minimum of seven years and then destroyed, except in the case of suspension or expulsion and/or at the discretion of the Dean of Students, which becomes a matter of permanent record." A finding of Not Responsible is retained only one year; Charges Dropped materials are retained seven years. No separate statement addresses notation on the student's academic transcript. — Student Code of Conduct: Academic Integrity (implemented Aug. 15, 2023; retrieved Oct 12, 2026)

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

From Section 5 of USI's Code of Student Behavior (implemented Aug. 15, 2023; retrieved Oct 12, 2026):

Sanctions are classified into three severity levels (Level I through Level III) ranging from a failed assignment through dismissal from a program, probation, and expulsion from the University; even "a first offense, places the student in jeopardy of the most severe form of sanction--expulsion from the University." A student found responsible may appeal to the dean of the academic college on one of four stated grounds, then request Provost review when the outcome is program dismissal, suspension, or expulsion, each step decided within ten business days. Source: Student Code of Conduct: Academic Integrity, sections 5.3.H–5.3.M. 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

2026-10-12 — Page created. Cold build (no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts research). Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI writing indicator, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) found none deployed. GENUINE EMPTY AI-DETECTION INVENTORY, not a disqualification: CETL's own AI Tools and Teaching page states directly that SafeAssign, the one plagiarism tool USI names, "does not have a tool to determine if work submitted has been generated by an AI-generation tool," and nothing on the page recommends against AI detection as a category — it simply has none to recommend against. Category sweep (CETL's teaching-and-learning pages, Section 5 of the Code of Student Behavior, and the Dean of Students' policies index) found no other detector, proctoring tool, or exam-integrity system. One undated, unconfirmed lead not used: Approved Faculty Senate minutes (library.usi.edu, a search snippet only) discuss faculty training needs for "Turn-It-In" with "[l]imitations posed by false positives and false negatives discussed" — no date was confirmed on that document in this pass, it predates CETL's current guidance in subject matter, and CETL's current page does not name Turnitin as deployed, so it is recorded here rather than built into the docket. Separately, Faculty Senate minutes dated 2025-11-06 record that "Faculty Senate has been working on a small number of charges regarding an academic ombudsman," confirming no such office exists yet rather than one simply being unadvertised. Process captured from Section 5 of the Code of Student Behavior (Student Rights and Responsibilities, approved Aug. 14, 2023 by Dean Laurie Berry, implemented Aug. 15, 2023), read in full. Accompany row found: advisor right quoted, with the restriction that the advisor "may not address the hearing officer or hearing board or ask questions of any witnesses"; recording is addressed only indirectly, through the appeal provision allowing review of "the recorded transcript of the hearing," so a hearing's existence of a recording is established but the policy does not separately state who may request one. Record row: the policy states conduct-record retention periods (one year for Not Responsible, seven years for Charges Dropped and ordinary Responsible findings, permanent for suspension/expulsion) but no separate academic-transcript-notation rule, and that absence is stated rather than assumed. Office: the policy's own text (5.3.A) names the Provost's Office as the academic-integrity administering authority, so the docket uses the Provost's Office's own published contact rather than the Dean of Students Office, which publishes the Code itself and handles the broader Code of Student Behavior; both are linked in the source map. No ombuds or student-advocacy office is named on USI's own pages: a search for "ombudsperson" found none dedicated to students (only an unrelated federal student-loan Ombudsman Group and a nursing-home ombudsman program), and a search for "student advocacy" found no office serving that function for conduct or academic-integrity matters. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-12).

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