University of Wisconsin-Whitewater.

Detection status: Turnitin's AI-writing detection is enabled campus-wide as an indicator within the Similarity Report; the teaching center states AI detection "should never be the sole evidence" in a misconduct case and that scores under 20% "should not be interpreted as evidence of AI-generated writing"
Office in these sources: Dean of Students Office · Andersen Suite 2130, 800 W. Main St., Whitewater, WI 53190 · 262-472-1533 · deanofstudents@uww.edu
Ombuds or advocacy office: None located on the institution's own pages in this review.
Sources last checked: Sep 30, 2026

Reproduced from the institution's own pages quoted below — potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case.

UW-Whitewater is one campus of the Universities of Wisconsin (UW System), and its academic-misconduct process is set largely by a statewide administrative rule rather than by a campus-only policy — see below. These are potentially relevant official sources, not a determination of which one governs any case — course syllabi also set AI-use rules, and UW-Whitewater's Faculty Senate has resolved that an AI policy must appear in every syllabus. Confirm applicability with the institution. Any dates are quoted from the sources, not a deadline calculation performed for you.

01Detection status

Turnitin's AI writing score is in use, with an explicit reliability threshold

UW-Whitewater's Center for Advancing Teaching, Learning, and Success in Teaching (CATLST) states, in a dated blog post titled AI, Turnitin, and Academic Integrity: Quick Reminders (page dated Jan 15, 2026; retrieved Sep 30, 2026):

"Turnitin's AI-writing detection appears as an additional indicator within the Similarity Report. It analyzes qualifying prose and generates an estimate of how much text is likely to be AI-written or AI-paraphrased." "Turnitin explicitly cautions that its false-positive rate is significantly higher when the AI percentage is below 20%." "Scores under 20% should not be interpreted as evidence of AI-generated writing." "Turnitin reports a false-positive rate of under 1% only when a document contains at least ~20% AI-generated text." "Combine evidence, don't rely on detection scores alone. AI detection is one data point, not confirmation. Chapter 14 requires:" multiple forms of evidence, patterns of concern, and student conversation or documentation (listed as separate items on the source page). "AI detection should never be the sole evidence in a misconduct case."

The same post also states Turnitin's tool "does not reliably assess" bullet points, outlines, poetry, nonstandard writing, code, or "extremely short submissions." Source: AI, Turnitin, and Academic Integrity: Quick Reminders — Spark (CATLST).

UW-Whitewater's Faculty and Staff AI Guidelines add a caution about tools other than Turnitin (no on-page date; retrieved Sep 30, 2026): "Instructors who chose to use a third-party detection service, one that the university does not have an enterprise license with, must get explicit student consent to submit any student work that is for a grade. Doing so without student consent may constitute a FERPA violation." [sic — the source page reads "chose" rather than "choose."] The same page instructs that if AI misuse is suspected, an instructor should "speak directly with the student first" and "review UWS Chapter 14 procedures or contact the UW-Whitewater Dean of Students Office for additional clarity." Source: Faculty and Staff AI Guidelines.

A named-vendor sweep of uww.edu (SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) and a category sweep (the AI Guidelines, the Allowable and Prohibited AI Usage page, the Dean of Students' misconduct pages, and CATLST's teaching-technology blog) found no detector with an enterprise license beyond Turnitin.

02Published process

What UW-Whitewater's own pages, and the state administrative code, say about how cases proceed

Who may be present: At a hearing before the academic misconduct hearing committee, the student has the right to question adverse witnesses and "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." The hearing committee "shall make a record of the hearing," including "a verbatim record of the testimony, which may be a sound recording." Source: Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter UWS 14, ss. 14.08(3)(a) and (c) (Register November 2024 No. 827; retrieved Sep 30, 2026) — the same statewide rule UW-Whitewater's own UWS Chapter 14 page directs students and instructors to.
What follows on the record: No transcript notation and no records-retention period is stated in UWS 14 itself. What is stated: a lesser, instructor-level "written reprimand presented only to the student" is not filed, while a more serious written reprimand imposed after an investigating officer's finding becomes part of the student's disciplinary file. "Suspension or expulsion shall be systemwide in effect" across the Universities of Wisconsin, and a suspended or expelled student may not enroll elsewhere in the system until the suspension expires or a year has passed. Source: UWS 14, ss. 14.04(1)(b), (h) and 14.12.

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

UW-Whitewater's own Dean of Students hub states plainly: "UWS Chapter 14 provides for disciplinary action of students who engage in academic misconduct such as cheating, plagiarism," and links a template instructor letter quoting the rule directly: "As explained in section UWS 14.06(3)c, you have the right to a hearing under UWS 14.08 to contest my determination." Source: UWS Chapter 14 Student Academic Disciplinary Procedures — Dean of Students (retrieved Sep 30, 2026). UWS 14 itself (Register November 2024 No. 827) states the standard of proof:

"The hearing committee may find academic misconduct and impose a sanction of suspension or expulsion only if the proof of such misconduct is clear and convincing. In other cases, a finding of misconduct must be based on a preponderance of the credible evidence." On notice: no sanction may be imposed by an instructor "unless the instructor promptly offers to discuss the matter with the student." On appeal: where the sanction is suspension or expulsion, "the student may appeal to the chancellor to review the decision of the hearing committee on the record," and the chancellor must sustain the committee's decision unless the evidence does not support it, established procedures were not followed with material prejudice to the student, or the decision rested on a legally proscribed factor. Beyond the chancellor, "the Board of Regents may, at its discretion, grant a review upon the record."

Source: Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter UWS 14, Student Academic Disciplinary Procedures, ss. 14.05, 14.08(3)(e), and 14.09-14.10. This is the identical statewide rule quoted on the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay page in this collection; UW-Whitewater's own pages point to the same chapter rather than restating its text. What these quotations mean for any particular case is for the institution and its process to determine.

03Source map

Where the documents live

Document	Location
AI, Turnitin, and Academic Integrity: Quick Reminders (CATLST blog, detection status)	blogs.uww.edu/catlst — Turnitin reminders
Faculty and Staff AI Guidelines	uww.edu — AI Guidelines
Wisconsin Administrative Code, Chapter UWS 14 (quoted for process, standard of proof, advisor, recording, appeal, and records)	docs.legis.wisconsin.gov — UWS 14
UWS Chapter 14 Student Academic Disciplinary Procedures (Dean of Students hub)	uww.edu — UWS Chapter 14 hub
Dean of Students Office (contact; checked for an ombuds/advocacy role — see change log)	uww.edu — Dean of Students

Organizing your own drafts and records to bring to any of this: the records checklist. Capturing the pages above as they read today, and keeping your own dated record beside them: what to do with these sources.

04Change log

Revision history of this page

2026-09-30 — Page created. Cold build; no prior CANDIDATES.md or procedure-facts.json research to reuse. SECOND UW SYSTEM BUILD, REUSING THE FIRST'S FINDING: no UW-System-wide detection policy exists (established at UW-Green Bay, entry 185, built the same day); Wisconsin Administrative Code Chapter UWS 14 (Register November 2024 No. 827) is systemwide for process, standard of proof, advisor right, recording, appeal, and records, and is quoted here from the same verified text rather than re-fetched fresh section by section — the PDF itself was re-read to confirm section numbers and to reuse the exact clean (non-hyphen-broken) quotation spans already identified for UWGB. Detection established first-party: UW-Whitewater's CATLST confirms Turnitin's AI-writing detection enabled campus-wide as a Similarity Report indicator, in a dated post (Jan 15, 2026) with a specific reliability threshold (false positives "significantly higher... below 20%") that is more granular than UWGB's caution language. NOT DISQUALIFIED: documented in use with strong non-reliance guidance, not disabled. Named-vendor and category sweeps found no other enterprise-licensed detector; the Faculty and Staff AI Guidelines separately caution that any other, non-enterprise-licensed detection service requires "explicit student consent" under FERPA, confirming Turnitin as the one detector the university has actually licensed. OMBUDS/ADVOCACY CHECKED AND NONE FOUND, SAME TRAP AS UWGB: the Dean of Students Office states on its own page, "We advocate, support, and advise students as they navigate through their educational journey," but this is the same office that administers the UWS 14 misconduct process (the "student affairs officer" for this campus) and also handles Conduct directly — not an independent party representing an accused student — so it is not presented as an ombuds or student advocate here. A stale, third-party lead was checked and set aside: an executive-search biography (not a current uww.edu page) states that a former Dean of Students, in the role from 2016-2019, "served as the university ombudsperson relating to student issues" — a title tied to the same conduct-administering position at that time, not a current, independent, publicly listed ombuds service; not used as evidence of a present-day ombuds office. Neither fetched HTML source page (CATLST post excepted, dated Jan 15, 2026) displays its own on-page revision date; UWS 14 carries its own Register date and is dated by that. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-09-30).

2026-10-06 — Internet Archive captures requested on 2026-09-30 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: AI, Turnitin, and Academic Integrity: Quick Reminders — Spark (CATLST) → https://web.archive.org/web/20260930110718/https://blogs.uww.edu/catlst/2026/01/15/ai-turnitin-and-academic-integrity-quick-reminders/; Chapter UWS 14 → https://web.archive.org/web/20260930110435/https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/code/admin_code/uws/14.pdf.

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