William & Mary.

What William & Mary's own pages say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

A Respondent has "[t]he right to have another willing currently enrolled William and Mary student" serve as a student advisor; the Code adds that "[t]he advisor can assist the Respondent at any point in the process, but the scheduling of matters cannot be constrained due solely to the inability of the advisor to be present." Separately, the Respondent has "[t]he right to the presence of a silent supporter (who can be legal counsel) and one immediate family member to attend the Panel" — but "[n]either the silent supporter nor the family member can participate in the proceeding in any manner," and legal counsel requires written notice to SARP "at least three days in advance." A recording is made of the proceeding: the Respondent has "[t]he right to review the documentary evidence and recording in preparation for appeal."

What follows on the record

"If the student receives a failing grade as a result of an academic integrity violation, that grade will remain on the transcript even if the student has withdrawn, or has been withdrawn from the course, and regardless of whether the student retakes the course." Beyond the grade itself, the Honor Council can impose additional sanctions, which are decided case by case; the sources reviewed do not state a separate "academic dishonesty" transcript notation distinct from the grade.

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

The standard of proof is the most distinctive first-party finding on this page: William & Mary's Honor Code defines "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" as "the amount of proof required to find a student in violation of the Honor Code. Reasonable doubt is doubt based upon reason and common sense that is based on the information presented at the proceeding." This is a markedly higher standard than the "preponderance of the evidence" ("more likely than not") used at most other institutions in this collection.

The Respondent's own current, currently-enrolled William & Mary student advisor is distinct from a "CHAP" — a trained volunteer from the Conduct and Honor Advisor Program whom a Respondent "may request … to attend the meeting with the Early Resolution panel" for certain lower-level violations resolved outside a full Council hearing. Serious or contested violations proceed to a full Honor Council panel, which decides responsibility and, if the student is found responsible, determines sanctions considering "the gravity of the violation(s), the harm/potential harm created by the act, and the student's prior record."

Appeal runs through two possible stages. First: "The Respondent must submit a written appeal specifying the ground(s) for appeal and the reasoning supporting the grounds to the Vice President for Student Affairs (VPSA) within five working days of receiving written notice," on one of six stated grounds — a discrimination-policy violation, a violation of the Respondent's enumerated rights, procedural error that significantly affected the outcome, insufficient information to support the finding, an excessive or inappropriate sanction, or new, non-corroborative exculpatory evidence. A four-member Appeals Committee (one faculty member, one administrator, two students) reviews the appeal; if it finds potential merit, the matter goes to the Provost. "The decision of the Provost is considered final, and no further appeal can be submitted." Source: 2026-27 Student Handbook — The Honor System. 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

2026-10-14 — Page created (unattended scheduled build; cold build, no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts.json research to reuse). Priority A tranche 4, entry 255. 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) and category sweep (Information Technology's popular-tools list, the Studio for Teaching & Learning Innovation's full set of GenAI instructional pages, SARP's AI advice for faculty, and the Honor Code's own text) found no AI-text detector named anywhere on wm.edu — a genuinely unresolved inventory, not a disqualification, since nothing found recommends against detection either; SARP's AI guidance rests entirely on treating undisclosed AI as an unauthorized resource under the existing "Use of Unauthorized Materials" provision, never on a detection tool. SUBSTANTIVE FINDING: the evidentiary standard is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt," defined in the Honor Code's own Definitions section — markedly higher than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard used at most other institutions built in this collection; this was read directly from the current 2026-27 Student Handbook PDF (pp. 72 ff.), not inferred from a summary. PROCESS CAPTURED IN FULL FROM THE HONOR SYSTEM SECTION of that Handbook: the distinct roles of a currently-enrolled student advisor (full participation rights "at any point in the process") versus a silent supporter/legal-counsel-and-one-family-member (present but barred from participating), the CHAP (Conduct and Honor Advisor Program) as a separate resource available specifically at Early Resolution panels, the recording made of proceedings and the Respondent's right to review it before appeal, the 30-calendar-day reporting window and 30-working-day resolution target, and the two-stage appeal (Appeals Committee, then Provost on a finding of potential merit) on six named grounds. RECORD: a failing grade from an academic-integrity violation "will remain on the transcript even if the student has withdrawn … and regardless of whether the student retakes the course" — stated plainly and without qualification; no separate academic-dishonesty notation distinct from the grade itself was located. OFFICE: Student Accountability & Restorative Practices (SARP) operates within Community Values & Connection; SARP's own "About Us" page lists individual staff emails (no office-specific phone) while its parent division's contact block gives the office phone, email and Sadler Center suite used here — both confirmed first-party and cross-checked against each other. OMBUDS: none located; "ombudsperson," "ombuds," and "student advocacy" searches across wm.edu returned nothing beyond Conflict Resolution & Education (CRE), a second department within the same Community Values & Connection division as SARP (not independent of the office that administers Honor Code sanctions) that is scoped to general interpersonal conflict — roommate disputes, difficult conversations — and does not address academic-integrity or Honor Code accompaniment anywhere on its own pages; not used for this row. FIDELITY CORRECTIONS ON FIRST RUN: three quotations lowercased a sentence-initial capital without the required bracket (corrected to "[t]he" x3), and the student-advisor quotation was restructured after discovering that pdftotext's extraction of the words immediately following "enrolled William and Mary student" is UNSTABLE across runs at that PDF page boundary — observed variously as "serve as a student [2]" (the word "advisor" and its footnote both lost) and as an unrelated footnote's text inserted mid-sentence, with the text on both sides of that junction stable across repeated captures. The quotation now ends at "student" and resumes at a separately-stable later sentence rather than quoting through the unstable span; see tools/recipes/wm.json's notes for source 5. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending — not requested this pass (unattended scheduled run). Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-14).

2026-10-16 — Internet Archive captures requested this date by an automated capture pass; 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: wm.edu/offices/communityvalues → https://web.archive.org/web/20261016042053/https://www.wm.edu/offices/communityvalues/; AI and Honor Code Advice for Faculty → https://web.archive.org/web/20261016042126/https://www.wm.edu/offices/communityvalues/sarp/facultyresources/ai_advice/; wm.edu/offices/communityvalues/sarp/sarp-about → https://web.archive.org/web/20261016042245/https://www.wm.edu/offices/communityvalues/sarp/sarp-about/; wm.edu — 2026-27 Student Handbook (PDF) → https://web.archive.org/web/20261016042412/https://www.wm.edu/offices/communityvalues/sarp/studenthandbook/26-27_stu_handbook.pdf; 2026-27 Student Handbook — The Honor System → https://web.archive.org/web/20261016042431/https://www.wm.edu/offices/communityvalues/sarp/studenthandbook/honorcode/; wm.edu/offices/it → https://web.archive.org/web/20261016042503/https://www.wm.edu/offices/it/.

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