William Paterson University.

What WPU's Academic Integrity Policy and Student Code of Conduct say about how cases proceed

Who may be present

A student has "the right to be assisted by one advisor of their choice. The advisor may assist the student in the preparation of their information; the advisor may help provide support to the student. However, the advisor is neither permitted to advocate on behalf of the student, question eyewitnesses, directly address the hearing officer or members of the University Hearing Board, nor request a schedule change." "The Office of Student Conduct will record and preserve the audio or zoom file for every hearing. Recording is not permitted by any other party. All deliberations of the University Hearing Board are confidential." — Student Code of Conduct · University Regulations and Disciplinary Procedures 2026-2027

What follows on the record

Not stated in the sources reviewed: neither the Academic Integrity Policy nor the Student Code of Conduct uses the word "transcript" anywhere. Sanctions through "Suspension from the University" and "Expulsion from the University" are described only in terms of the student's enrollment and campus-presence status, with no stated transcript notation. — Academic Integrity Policy · Student Code of Conduct

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

The Academic Integrity Policy (Adopted 07-12-23; retrieved Oct 17, 2026) sets a three-level process. "Level I — Informal Process": the faculty member discusses the allegation with the student and, if the student admits the violation, "will determine a reasonable sanction," documented on "the University's electronic conduct reporting system, Maxient." "Level II — Formal Process": for a disputed sanction, or for sanctions lowering a course grade or failing the student for the course, the student appeals in writing to the department chairperson within "5 business days," then, if unresolved, to the college dean within a further "5 business days." "Level III — Formal Process When Dean Recommends Dismissal": "required when the dean recommends that the student be suspended or dismissed," referred to the Student Conduct Office, where "[t]he University Hearing Board is the only body with the authority to suspend or expel students."

The Student Code of Conduct (edition "University Regulations and Disciplinary Procedures 2026-2027"; retrieved Oct 17, 2026) governs that Hearing Board process: "the threshold utilized for determining responsibility for alleged violations will be the preponderance of the evidence. This means that the hearing officer or hearing board will weigh all information available about an incident and ask themselves if the violation is more likely than not to have occurred." A student appealing a University Hearing Board suspension or expulsion decision "has five (5) business days from the date they were informed of the... decision to file a written appeal to the Vice President of Student Development or designee," citing one of a stated list of grounds; new information is excluded if it was available but not presented ("a student's failure to attend a hearing or provide information during a hearing does not constitute grounds for appeal on the basis of new information"), and "[a]ppeals are confined to a review of the written documentation or record of the original hearing." Source: University Regulations and Disciplinary Procedures 2026-2027. 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

2026-10-17 — Page created. Priority A tranche 4, entry 271. Cold build (no prior CANDIDATES.md/procedure-facts research). All quotations retrieved this date. The Generative AI in Coursework policy carries its own "ADOPTED: 04/22/2025" and a signature date of "5/1/2025"; the Academic Integrity Policy carries its own "ADOPTED: 07-12-23"; the Student Code of Conduct page is headed "University Regulations and Disciplinary Procedures 2026-2027" and dated "August 21, 2026" at its close. Named-vendor sweep (Turnitin and its AI writing indicator specifically, SimCheck, Originality, Copyleaks, iThenticate, GPTZero, Originality.ai, Winston AI, Crossplag, ZeroGPT, Packback, Grammarly Authorship, Honorlock, Proctorio, Respondus, Examity) found only Turnitin, confirmed first-party via the IT Wiki's Category:TeachwithTech page as integrated with Blackboard for plagiarism detection; multiple library research guides and older course syllabi corroborate the same deployment, none naming an AI-writing feature. DISQUALIFICATION CHECK: the Generative AI in Coursework policy leaves AI-use rules to instructor discretion per syllabus and does not recommend against detection or state any tool has been disabled; not disqualified. TRANSPORT NOTE: both policy PDFs were fetched directly via curl with a browser User-Agent string; the Academic Integrity Policy PDF resolves correctly from the production www.wpunj.edu host (a copy also exists on a testcs.wpunj.edu staging subdomain, surfaced by search, and was not used). PROCESS-VERIFICATION SWEEP: the same pages, plus one additional site search, found nothing beyond the faculty-discretion framework already quoted in section 01; none-published at the scope searched. PROCESS drawn from two documents read together: the Academic Integrity Policy's three-level escalation (informal faculty resolution, then a chair/dean appeal track, then a University Hearing Board referral when the dean recommends suspension or dismissal) and the Student Code of Conduct's governing rules for that Hearing Board stage (preponderance of the evidence, the one-advisor accompaniment right with its stated limits, the sole-recording-by-the-office rule, and the five-business-day appeal window to the Vice President of Student Development on stated grounds only). RECORD ROW: neither document uses the word "transcript"; sanctions up to and including expulsion are described only in enrollment/campus-presence terms, and that absence is stated rather than inferred. OFFICE: Office of Student Conduct & Dispute Resolution, 973-720-6250, confirmed directly on the office's own Student Conduct Home page; no office-specific email was located on that page or its linked pages, so the docket states the absence rather than substituting a general university address. OMBUDS/ADVOCACY: searched wpunj.edu for "ombudsperson," "ombudsman," and "student advocate"; found no dedicated office. The Office of Student Conduct's own name includes "Dispute Resolution," but it is the same office the Student Code of Conduct describes as administering hearings, recording them, and notifying students of outcomes, and no wpunj.edu page describes it as independent, confidential, or neutral; not presented here as a separate ombuds resource. Nothing paraphrase-pending. Archive captures pending. Reviewer: Carrie Schluter (review confirmed 2026-10-17).

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