University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh.

What UWO's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

"The student shall have the right to question adverse witnesses, the right to present evidence and witnesses, and to be heard in his or her own behalf, and the right to be accompanied by a representative of his or her choice." This right attaches at a hearing before the academic misconduct hearing committee, not at the earlier instructor conference. On recording: "The hearing committee shall make a record of the hearing. The record shall include a verbatim record of the testimony, which may be a sound recording, and a file of the exhibits offered at the hearing." Whether a student may independently record a hearing is not addressed. — Wisconsin Administrative Code UWS 14.08(3)(a) and (c) (current, no revision date shown on the codified text; retrieved Sep 22, 2026) · UWS 14.08 — Hearing

What follows on the record

Not stated in the sources reviewed. Chapter UWS 14 defines a "disciplinary file" only as "the record maintained by the student affairs officer responsible for student discipline," with no stated retention period or disclosure rule, and names no transcript notation of any kind. The one systemwide consequence it does state is that "[s]uspension or expulsion shall be systemwide in effect" — a student suspended or expelled at one UW System institution "may not enroll in another institution in the system" until the suspension expires or a year has passed. — UWS 14.02(5) and 14.12(1) · UWS 14.12 — Effect of discipline within the university system

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

The disciplinary procedure itself is set by Chapter UWS 14 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, a University of Wisconsin System rule that governs every UW System institution and that UWO's own policy adopts without adding local provisions — UWO's Academic Misconduct policy (GEN 4.B.3; no on-page date; retrieved Sep 22, 2026) states:

Source: Academic Misconduct (GEN 4.B.3) — Policy. From Chapter UWS 14 itself (current codified text; retrieved Sep 22, 2026), where "[d]ays" means calendar days (UWS 14.02(4)):

The disciplinary sanctions available range from an oral reprimand through a written reprimand, repeating an assignment, a lower or failing grade on an assignment or in the course, removal from the course, disciplinary probation, and suspension or expulsion (UWS 14.04(1)). UWO's own student-facing page groups these the same way and adds the practical detail that a Sanction Group C recommendation (probation, suspension, or expulsion) is decided by the Dean of Students Office itself, with a hearing, if requested, before "[a] Hearing Examiner* or Committee", which "may be an Administrative Law Judge from the Wisconsin Division of Hearing an Appeals" (reproduced exactly as published, including the source's own apparent typo). Source: Academic Misconduct (Chapter UWS 14) — Dean of Students Office; Chapter UWS 14 — Student Academic Disciplinary Procedures. 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

2026-09-22 — Page created by an automated build pass; no human review is claimed for this entry. First-party material captured this date from uwosh.edu (CETL's Generative AI: Recommendations and Best Practices; the Dean of Students Office's Academic Misconduct and Student Assistance pages; the GEN 4.B.3 policy page), from uwosh.atlassian.net (the current, Canvas-era IT Knowledge Base — the LTI Integrations and Use the TurnItIn LTI articles), and from docs.legis.wisconsin.gov (Chapter UWS 14 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code, fetched section by section: 14.01–14.04, 14.06, 14.08, 14.09, and 14.12–14.15). Named-vendor and category sweeps found one confirmed deployment, Turnitin, campus-wide in Canvas; no other detector is named or deployed anywhere in the sources reviewed. SCOPE LIMITATION, stated on the page: no UWO source specifies whether Turnitin's AI-writing indicator specifically (as opposed to plain similarity/originality checking) is enabled for all assignments or left to each instructor within the same "Turnitin - Plagiarism checker and other tools" LTI; CETL's own guidance frames using "a detector" as something an instructor "choose[s]" to do, which is the closest first-party statement to resolving the question and the one the page relies on. NOT A DISQUALIFICATION: CETL's caution that detector results "should NOT be used as evidence of academic dishonesty" is guidance on how to use a detector, not a statement that any detector has been disabled or that its use is recommended against; UWO's page structure and language here (advising against relying on detector output as sole evidence) match a pattern already recorded elsewhere in this collection rather than a step-2 exclusion. STALE/DEAD LINK NOTED AND NOT USED: search results surfaced a pre-2019 "d2lfaq" Turnitin page (uwosh.edu/d2lfaq/other-tools/turnitin-grademark/...) referencing the university's former D2L/Desire2Learn LMS; UWO switched to Canvas in 2019 and the URL returns 404 today, so it was not used, and the current Canvas-era IT Knowledge Base pages were used instead. UW SYSTEM NOTE for future Wisconsin builds: no systemwide AI-detection position is on file anywhere searched, confirming the queue's expectation from the Madison/Milwaukee exclusions, but the disciplinary PROCEDURE itself is systemwide — Chapter UWS 14 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code governs every UW System institution's academic-misconduct process, and UWO's own GEN 4.B.3 policy adopts it without local additions; a future UW System build can reuse the UWS 14 citations directly and should check only for a campus-specific detector inventory, hearing-committee implementation (UWS 14.15), and office contact. OMBUDS: the only "ombudsperson" found on uwosh.edu is the Faculty Senate's Ombudsperson, whose own page states its role is to "advise and advocate for the fair representation of faculty members' rights and concerns" — faculty-scoped and excluded on that basis. The Dean of Students Office's own "Advocacy Meetings" and "support, guidance, and advocacy" language was not used to present DOS itself as a student ombuds or advocate, because DOS is the same office that receives academic-misconduct reports, makes Sanction Group C determinations, and administers the disciplinary process — not described by the institution as independent, confidential, or neutral. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Internet Archive captures pending — to be requested by a later capture pass. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-22).

2026-10-06 — Internet Archive captures requested on 2026-09-25 by an automated capture pass and recorded this date; no human review is claimed for this entry. No quotation, date, finding or link above was changed by it. Each capture below was requested through Save Page Now and then confirmed to play back. Captures added: LTI Integrations - Canvas — IT Knowledge Base → https://web.archive.org/web/20260925121927/https://uwosh.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/IT/pages/2162327597/LTI+Integrations+-+Canvas; Generative AI: Recommendations and Best Practices — CETL → https://web.archive.org/web/20260925122008/https://www.uwosh.edu/cetl/generative-ai-recommendations-and-best-practices/; uwosh.edu/deanofstudents/student-assistance/ → https://web.archive.org/web/20260925122042/https://www.uwosh.edu/deanofstudents/student-assistance/; Academic Misconduct (Chapter UWS 14) — Dean of Students Office → https://web.archive.org/web/20260925122115/https://www.uwosh.edu/deanofstudents/student-conduct/academic-misconduct/; Academic Misconduct (GEN 4.B.3) — Policy → https://web.archive.org/web/20260925122158/https://www.uwosh.edu/policy/academic-misconduct/.

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