University of Tennessee at Martin.

What UT Martin's Standards of Conduct and reporting pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

At a Disciplinary Hearing Board hearing, "[t]he accused student may be accompanied by no more than one (1) advisor during the hearing, including but not limited to a parent, spouse, friend, or attorney. The role of the advisor shall be limited to providing advice or support... An advisor is not permitted to: introduce evidence; raise objections; present arguments; directly address the members of the Disciplinary Hearing Board." The reporting page for academic dishonesty specifically does not address an advisor or recording at the earlier, professor-level stage. — Standards of Conduct, March 2021 (Revised)

What follows on the record

No transcript-notation language is used anywhere in the Standards of Conduct. What is stated: "A record will be made of the hearing procedures... If a verbatim record of the hearing is prepared, it shall be retained in the custody of the Office of Student Conduct and considered a confidential disciplinary record." No retention period or disclosure rule beyond that confidentiality statement is given. — Standards of Conduct

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

Two tracks are published, both reproduced as the institution's own pages describe them. The Office of Student Conduct and Care's Reporting Academic Dishonesty page (retrieved Oct 18, 2026; no on-page revision date beyond "© 2023 UT Martin") describes the professor-initiated stage: the professor identifies the suspected dishonesty, sets a proposed penalty, and notifies the student in writing, then is to "Complete an online report and attach the following items: Syllabus, assignment(s) submitted or involved, and letter of notification to student about the incident." The Office of Student Conduct may then seek "Consultation with Professor," described as to "get further details of allegations, copies of paperwork, etc.," and the student "has opportunity to state their side of the story" at a meeting with a Student Conduct Officer before accepting the sanction or appealing. "All academic appeals are heard before the University Council"; "If the council recommends a different course of action, those recommendations are forwarded to the Chancellor for review" (a footnoted exception follows for additional statements). "The instructor may choose to accept or not accept the recommendations." The only stated deadline is on the professor's side: the matter "Must be reported to the Office of Student Conduct and Care prior to the close of business during final exams." No evidentiary standard, advisor right, recording rule, or transcript/retention provision is stated on this page.

The Standards of Conduct (March 2021, Revised; retrieved Oct 18, 2026) defines academic dishonesty as a Standards-of-Conduct violation (Section 13) and supplies the rules for a formal Disciplinary Hearing Board, which a case may reach. There, the University "shall have the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, the truth of the charge(s) at issue." Sanctions on any student found responsible range from a reprimand through suspension for a specific period, indefinite suspension, and expulsion; the Standards of Conduct's own hearing-procedures section states that "Appeals from decisions of the Disciplinary Hearing Board may be made to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs in accordance with Chapter 1720-05-01-.09" — a different appeal path than the University Council route the reporting page describes for a professor-level academic sanction. Both appeal paths are reproduced as published rather than reconciled. Source: Standards of 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

2026-10-18 — Page created. Priority A tranche 4, entry 276. Cold build (scheduled, unattended); no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts.json research to reuse. Fifth and final entry in this pass's batch. All quotations retrieved this date; the AI Policy carries its own "Version: 1" and "Effective Date: July 1, 2025," and the Standards of Conduct is headed "March 2021 (Revised)." Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI writing detector specifically, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) across utm.edu found no named product anywhere; what is confirmed is the campus AI Policy's generic authorization of "AI detection tools" for instructional purposes, paired with an explicit non-sole-measure caution ("[u]nder no circumstances shall the results of AI detection tools be the single measure for determining the academic performance of or misconduct by a Student"). Earlier search results suggesting a specific "Course Syllabus Format and Sample AI Language" page led first to the university's generic, AI-silent syllabus template PDF before the actual AI Policy and its companion "Sample Syllabus Language for Using AI Tools" document were located on the Academic Affairs procedures-and-documents page; both the template and the policy's own Appendix A sample language were checked and neither names a detection product. DISQUALIFICATION CHECK: the policy affirmatively authorizes AI-detection-tool use; nothing recommends against it or states one has been disabled; not disqualified. PROCESS: two tracks reproduced as published, not reconciled — the Reporting Academic Dishonesty page's professor-initiated stage (written notification, an online report to the Office of Student Conduct and Care, a Student Conduct Officer meeting, appeal to the University Council and then the Chancellor, with no evidentiary standard, advisor right, or recording rule stated on that page) and the Standards of Conduct's formal Disciplinary Hearing Board stage, which Section 13 (Academic Dishonesty) reaches as a Standards-of-Conduct violation: preponderance of the evidence, a one-advisor limited-role right (named at least three days ahead), a hearing record retained confidentially by the Office of Student Conduct, and appeal to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs under Tennessee Chapter 1720-05-01-.09 — a different appeal body than the University Council the reporting page names, left unreconciled since the institution's own pages do not state which track a given case follows or when one escalates to the other. RECORDS: no transcript-notation language exists anywhere in the Standards of Conduct; the word "transcript" appears only once, describing a Title IX hearing recording, not an academic-record notation. OFFICE: Office of Student Conduct and Care, 215 Boling University Center, 731-881-7703, studentconduct@utm.edu, confirmed on the office's own contact page (a second address and the university's main switchboard number also appear on that page and were not used, since they are not specific to this office). OMBUDS: UT Martin's Office of Ombuds Services describes itself as "a confidential place for UT Martin faculty and staff" and does not mention students anywhere on its own page; recorded here as excluding the reader this page serves, not presented as a student resource. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-18).

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