Plagiarism and AI at Michigan LSA: the probation notation that clears after a year

The short answer

In LSA, most first findings end in disciplinary probation — and that notation sits on your unofficial transcript and is removed automatically after one year if nothing else happens. Suspension is the line where a notation becomes permanent, and forged or altered documents are the category that takes you there directly.

Two other things shape what you should do. LSA asks you to declare a finding on graduate school and job applications, and says it discloses violations when a programme asks. And an appeal to the Academic Judiciary Committee can raise your sanction as well as lower it — so it is a decision to make deliberately, not reflexively.

Why this page is about LSA

Academic integrity at Ann Arbor is decentralised: each school and college runs its own instrument. This page covers the College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA), which governs the largest undergraduate population on campus. If you are enrolled in Engineering, Ross, Rackham or another unit, your own school’s procedures govern you, not these — although LSA also handles conduct in LSA courses for students registered elsewhere, and then “will recommend a sanction or sanctions to the School or College in which the student is registered, but that School or College has the responsibility for imposing any recommendation or additional sanction it determines appropriate.”

We would normally set the college rules against the university-wide Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities. We cannot. The Office of Student Conflict Resolution site, its historic home, currently returns HTTP 410 Gone — for every path we tried, with the body “The requested resource is no longer available on this server and there is no forwarding address.” We found no successor location. So the university-wide statement’s text, date, approving body, AI language, sanctions and standard of proof are unretrievable to us at the moment of writing.

That is a statement about what we could read, not a claim that Michigan has no university-wide rules. If you need them, ask your school’s academic affairs office where the current statement lives — the answer exists inside the university even though the old public address does not resolve.

One more honest caveat about sourcing. Every umich.edu host we needed refuses plain automated requests, so the pages quoted here were read through a rendering service. The words are the college’s own, but they reached us at one remove; open the linked pages in a browser before you rely on any of it in a live case.

The sanctions, and what the transcript says

LSA splits authority in a way worth understanding, because it determines who can do what to you:

“Academic evaluation vs. Disciplinary action— Instructors have the authority to make academic judgments, such as a reduction in a grade or assigning additional work in the interests of furthering their students’ education. Only the Office of Student Academic Affairs has the authority to issue disciplinary actions.”

Course-level sanctions are the instructor’s: “appropriate grade penalties for the misconduct will be left up to the instructor based on syllabus grade policies or department policies, if applicable.” College-level sanctions belong to the Office of Student Academic Affairs (SAA), and these are the published four:

“Disciplinary probation - students are placed on probation for one year. As part of this process, a notation is placed on the student’s unofficial transcript. This notation serves as a warning and reprimand that the student has been found responsible for academic misconduct. After that one year period, the notation is removed provided no further violations of academic misconduct have occurred.”

“Reflective Essay- the student must write an essay about their experience, share what they have learned from it, and discuss how they intend to incorporate LSA Community Expectations into their personal and academic life moving forward.”

“Suspension - the student is ineligible to enroll at the university for one semester and a permanent notation is added to their transcript.In order to re-enroll in future terms, the student must write a petition for reactivation at least two weeks prior to the start of the term they wish to enroll.”

“Expulsion- The student is permanently removed from the university.”

So, precisely, on the record:

• Probation — a notation on the unofficial transcript, removed automatically after a year absent further violations.
• Suspension — a permanent transcript notation.
• No grade-level notation at all.LSA has no equivalent of Texas A&M’s F* or Penn State’s XF: a failing grade for misconduct looks like any other failing grade.

LSA also publishes its base rates in plain language, which is more than most colleges do:

“Most first-time offenses of academic misconduct result in a disciplinary probation.” — “Most first offenses of academic misconduct do not result in suspension or expulsion. However, there are a few violations that we do feel are egregious enough to warrant suspension or expulsion.”

Which ones:

“Forged documents:(like a doctor’s note) or ‘doctoring’ or altering of a university record or communication in order to receive an unfair advantage will result in suspension.” — “Repeat offenses:You may also face suspension if you are found responsible for a second or third instance of academic misconduct, regardless of the type of misconduct.” — “Expulsion from the University is typically reserved for multiple egregious acts that may have previously resulted in suspension.”

Note that the escalation to suspension for a repeat is regardless of the type — a second finding of any kind counts against the first.

While a case is open, your registration options close: “The student may NOT change registration in the course (e.g. drop the course or change the grading option to Pass/Fail).” If the term ends first, “the instructor should use the grade NR (No Report). NR is a temporary, neutral grade … The student may not receive credit for the course in which the alleged misconduct occurred and may not graduate.” And after a finding: “Students found responsible for academic misconduct with either resolution are not eligible to drop or choose pass/fail grading for the course.”

You will have to declare it

LSA is unusually direct about the part students most want to know, and the answer is not a comfortable one:

“Will I have to report this on my medical/law/graduate school or job applications? Yes. You should report any academic integrity violation.Applications will give you an opportunity to explain the incident and discuss what you’ve learned from the experience. Not reporting a violation is dishonest and could result in being denied admission or having your admission revoked if it is discovered that you had an academic integrity violation and did not disclose it. Graduate programs and prospective employers often require the student’s undergraduate institution to verify a student’s academic standing as part of the admissions process. These requests typically come from the student directly and can be submitted to SAA using the Dean’s Recommendation form. As part of this process, we are required to disclose academic integrity violations.”

Read that against the probation notation. The notation may clear after a year, but the disclosure duty on an application form does not run on the same clock — LSA’s answer is “report any academic integrity violation”, without a time limit, and the college verifies when asked. That is the strongest practical argument for contesting a finding you believe is wrong rather than accepting it to make the process end.

What counts as misconduct in LSA

The enumerated list is short and open-ended:

“Examples of academic misconduct include, but are not limited to:cheating, plagiarism, inappropriate collaboration, falsification of data, records, or documents, and aiding and abetting dishonesty.”

Generative AI is not in that list. It appears in the surrounding community-expectations text instead, as advice rather than as a category:

“Do your work yourself:The purpose of college is to learn the material, and if you are copying someone else’s work or using genAI, you aren’t learning. While it may seem minor in the moment, misconduct could impact your ability to be successful come exam time or in a future course. If you’re found responsible, there could be serious consequences.”

The closest thing LSA publishes to category definitions is a set of seven case-type explainers, released as PDFs and drawn from real adjudicated cases: Cheating; Unauthorized/Inappropriate Collaboration; Submitting Identical Work; Plagiarism; Falsifying and Misrepresenting Academic Materials or Documents; Contract Cheating; Aiding in Academic Dishonesty. They are teaching material — worth reading precisely because they show how the college reasons.

No LSA-wide or university-wide AI disclosure or citation form is published; that is left to your instructor’s syllabus. LSA’s instructor resources point at “examples for how to cite generative AI in APA, MLA, or Chicago Style formats” rather than at an institutional form, and the ITS article points to the U-M Library’s guidance. Our AI disclosure statement guide covers the general shape — at Michigan, follow your syllabus and your style guide.

U-M’s GenAI portal addresses tool choice and privacy rather than disclosure: “Tools provided by the University of Michigan, such as U-M GPT are private, secure, accessbile, equitable, and free for students. Data you share while using these tools will not be used for training these models, and hence are not at risk of being leaked.” (The spelling slip is in the original.)

Two more things from LSA’s student-facing pages that matter more than they look. First, intent is not a defence:

“What if I didn’t mean to commit academic misconduct - is that taken into consideration? Students often unintentionally violate academic integrity standards. For example, including source language in your paper without citing it. Violations can be unintended, but they are still violations and need to be addressed.During your Academic Misconduct Meeting, the Coordinator of Academic Integrity will hear your point of view and take into consideration the circumstances of your situation. Our goal is not to punish, but to educate you”.

Second, not knowing the rule is not a defence either:

“Cite your sources:Give proper attribution to any source that you use. … If you’re uncertain, cite.” — “Paraphrase appropriately: Remember that paraphrasing means more than simply changing a word here or there. … If you are struggling with paraphrasing, reach out to your instructor or the Sweetland Center for Writing to ask for assistance.” — “When in doubt, ask.It’s your responsibility as a student to know the rules. And the Office of Student Academic Affairs does not accept ‘I didn’t know’ as a defense.”

There is no campus-wide checker

This is the most distinctive fact about Michigan. U-M Information and Technology Services publishes a Knowledge Base article, “Plagiarism Detection with Generative AI Tools” (article 11803, published 14 March 2024), which the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching cites as the institutional position: “This ITS article explains UM policy toward AI detection tools, with a focus on their unreliability and tendency to give false positives.”

The article is addressed to faculty and staff asking about iThenticate, Turnitin and Vericite. Its answer:

“U-M does not currently provide a campus wide plagiarism checking system in the teaching and learning context. Use of these tools has not gained broad support on campus, thus the lack of a funded campus-wide offering. Typically, instructors engage students in education about plagiarism and use an honor code. In February 2024, the Office of the Vice President for Research (OVPR) announced that it had licensed the iThenticate tool for researchers to assess their own work for originality, but this tool is not to be used for evaluating student work.”

So there is no Turnitin, no SafeAssign, no institutional similarity checker for coursework — and the one originality tool the university does licence is expressly barred from being pointed at student work.

On AI detection specifically, the same article says three things:

“Detection tools are imperfect, and currently no software is able to detect AI-generated text with 100% certainty. AI detection tools can be used to identify situations where further inquiry into the use of AI-generated text may be needed. They should not be considered a definitive measure for cheating.”

“Language models generalize and summarize existing knowledge based on probability predictions of word sequences rather than copying it verbatim, and so it may be impossible to identify their use with certainty. While detection tools like Turnitin or GPTZero may report probability of AI authorship, they are easily circumvented and cannot provide definitive proof of cheating. False positives and negatives are possible, and even likely.”

“U-M does not recommend the use of AI-detection technology at this time given their high error rate.”

If you are ever facing an allegation resting on a detector percentage, that is the passage to have in front of you. But read the first quote as carefully as the third: Michigan does notforbid detectors, and expressly allows them as a trigger for “further inquiry”. It does not say who may run one or under what licence. A percentage can still be the reason a conversation starts; what the article denies it is the status of proof.

And LSA’s own student-facing page pushes the other way rhetorically: “Instructors are also more familiar with detection tools than students often assume, including tools for identifying AI-generated text, plagiarism, and unauthorized collaboration.” That is a deterrence message, not a statement that anything has been licensed — but it tells you the college does not consider the absence of a central system to be a free pass, and neither should you.

The alternative LSA actually recommends to instructors is process evidence: “Process Feedback- process feedback is a learning-first alternative to plagiarism or AI detection. It enables teachers and students to see the writing process or AI use and discuss how the learning process can be improved.” That works in your favour if you keep drafts, notes and version history — proving you wrote it yourself is about building exactly that record, and what to do when you are accused covers using it.

If a detector score is what started this, our guide to an AI detector flagging your thesis sets out what that number does and does not establish on its own.

Can you self-check? In effect, no. There is no campus-wide similarity system for teaching and learning, and iThenticate is for researchers checking their own work. The documented student supports are human: the Sweetland Center for Writing and the LSA Student Honor Council. There is also no submission repository to worry about, precisely because there is no campus-wide system — no retention period and no opt-out are published because there is nothing described to opt out of. Case materials themselves are handled under FERPA: “Materials related to a formal complaint of academic misconduct or an instructor’s report of a resolution will be maintained by the Office of Student Academic Affairs in compliance with the privacy expectations under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).”

We hold our own tool to the same standard Michigan applies to everyone else’s: our published error rates are measured on English and German corpora, and no detector — ours included — produces proof. If you want the longer version, see how accurate AI detectors really are.

Two routes, and what happens in the meeting

The instructor chooses one of two paths:

“1. Instructor Resolution: Resolve the matter directly with the student — Appropriate when: the incident is not egregious and merits no consequence greater than a zero on the assignment, though the student may be required to do additional, remedial work (e.g., rewrite a paper). 2. SAA Resolution: File a complaint to the Office of Student Academic Affairs, who will resolve the case. — Appropriate when: the sanction may result in the student failing the course or more severe sanction, the student has a previous finding of responsibility, or the student is suspected of falsifying or misrepresenting academic documents.”

A complaint “should be filed as soon as practical from the date of occurrence and should be submitted within 2 months of the date of the incident.”

Two protections apply while it is pending, and they are worth knowing by heart:

“The student is presumed to not be responsiblefor the alleged misconduct and the student may continue to attend class and receive grades.” — “The instructor may NOT impose any penalty or require any remedial work until the case has been resolved.”

If your instructor has already docked the grade before anything is resolved, that is contrary to the published procedure. Say so, politely, in writing.

Instructor Resolution has three outcomes: “Outcome A: Instructor accepts student’s explanation and finds that no misconduct has occurred.” “Outcome B:Student acknowledges misconduct and accepts course/grading sanction” — SAA then sends “an official warning”. “Outcome C:Student does not acknowledge misconduct and/or accept course sanction; however, the instructor feels misconduct has occurred” — which sends the case to SAA. And SAA can override the informal route anyway: “In the case of repeat or egregious offenses, the Office of Student Academic Affairs reserves the right to reject the outcome of an Instructor Resolution and require SAA Resolution.”

At SAA, the centrepiece is a 30-minute Academic Misconduct Meeting. What happens in it:

“The Coordinator of Academic Integrity or designee will describe the allegations made, detail the supporting evidence, and review the range of college-level sanctions(e.g. disciplinary probation, suspension, or expulsion).” — “Typically, in each meeting a representative of the LSA Student Honor Council participates, though they do not advocate for or against the student.” — “Students should notify the Office of Student Academic Affairs if they will have a support person in attendanceat the meeting.”

You may be able to put questions to the person accusing you: “In certain circumstances, the Coordinator of Academic Integrity may give the student the opportunity to ask questions of the accusing party, either by exchanging written questions or by asking questions during a subsequent meeting.” Ask for that if the facts are contested.

Evidence disclosure has a stated exception, so do not be blindsided by it:

“Sometimes, we are unable to share certain pieces of evidence in advance to preserve the integrity of the assessment. For example, if you are accused of cheating on an exam we may not be able to supply the exam itself prior to that meeting. You would, however, be able to review the exam during your meeting with the Coordinator of Academic Integrity.”

Not turning up is expensive: “If an accused student does not make timely arrangements for an Academic Misconduct Meeting, the Office of Student Academic Affairs will place a judicial holdon the student’s account until a meeting occurs. This hold will prevent students from registering for future courses … SAA will disenroll the student from future semesters. … In addition, the Assistant Dean may make a determination to continue the process in the student’s absencebased on the evidence presented.”

The decision-maker is the Coordinator of Academic Integrity or designee, and the standard is stated plainly:

“The standard of review is preponderance.This means that the student is not considered responsible unless the evidence demonstrates that it is ‘more likely than not’ that academic misconduct has occurred.”

Michigan also publishes a one-page Student Rights document (last modified 28 March 2024) restating six rights, beginning: “1. Presumption of Not Responsible- prior to a final resolution … the student is presumed to be not responsible for any alleged academic misconduct and will not be penalized based on mere allegations. The student may continue to attend class and receive grades. 2. Opportunity to Be Heard- The student has the right to be informed of the allegation made against them and to be provided with relevant evidence of misconduct.” It is one page. Print it before your meeting.

Timing, for planning: “Barring unforeseen circumstances, cases will be resolved within the academic term (and typically within three weeks) in which the incident occurs.”

The appeal can make it worse

Appeals go to the LSA Academic Judiciary Committee (AJC), “a committee composed of both undergraduate students and faculty members from the College of LSA”. The mechanics:

• Two weeks“from the date of the resolution letter”.
• The appeal must state what is being appealed: “the finding of academic misconduct, the college sanction imposed, or both.”
• “If students submit an appeal request, college- and course-level sanctions remain in place while it is pending.” Unlike some universities, appealing does not pause the sanction here.

The three grounds, verbatim:

“The procedure was violated in a way that seriously compromised the investigation and/or conclusions.” — “There is significant new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the meeting with the Coordinator of Academic Integrity or designee.” — “The college sanctions are excessive relative to the violation.” — “Appeals are not granted unless one or more of the above criteria are met and supported by evidence.”

There is a gate before the merits: “The AJC decides whether the appeal has sufficient grounds to move forward. If it does not, the appeal process ends and the Office of Student Academic Affairs’ decision stands. There is no further appeal opportunity.”

And then the part to weigh seriously before you file:

“After reviewing the appeal, the AJC may: Reverse the finding of responsibility (overturn the original decision), or Upholdthe finding of responsibility. If it’s upheld, the Committee may recommend that the Assistant Dean keep the sanction as is, reduce it, or increase it.”

An LSA appeal is not a free option. The committee can come back with a heavier sanction than the one you were given, and there is nowhere to go after that. If you have one of the three grounds and evidence for it, appeal. If what you really have is a feeling that the outcome was unfair, get advice first — from the Student Honor Council, your academic advisor, or someone who has read the procedures — rather than filing and hoping.

Before you submit

• Get your instructor’s AI policy in writing. Neither the LSA misconduct list nor any LSA-wide form addresses AI, so the syllabus is the instrument.
• Keep drafts, notes and version history. LSA recommends process feedback to instructors as the alternative to detection — that record is what it looks at.
• Cite when uncertain.The college’s own line is “if you’re uncertain, cite”, and unintended violations are still violations.
• Read the seven case explainers. They are drawn from real adjudicated cases and show how SAA reasons.
• If a meeting is scheduled, arrange it promptly and bring your record. Missing it triggers a judicial hold and the process can continue without you.
• Before appealing, check you have one of the three grounds. The AJC may increase the sanction, and there is no appeal after it.

If you want a private read on your own writing before you hand it in, our AI check is free up to 1,500 words, with no account and no name — a second opinion, not a clearance certificate.

Sources

• U-M Information and Technology Services: Knowledge Base article 11803 — Plagiarism Detection with Generative AI Tools — published 14 March 2024; cited by the Center for Research on Learning and Teaching as U-M policy toward AI detection tools.
• College of LSA: LSA Community Expectations Regarding Academic Integrity — undated; footer © 2026 Regents of the University of Michigan.
• College of LSA: Procedures for Resolving Violations of Academic Integrity — undated; the sanctions, the notation rules, the standard of review and the appeal.
• College of LSA: What to Do if You are Suspected of Academic Misconduct — undated; base rates, the meeting, and the disclosure answer.
• College of LSA: Student Rights (one page, PDF) — last modified 28 March 2024.

This page is orientation, not legal advice. What binds you is your course syllabus, the LSA Community Expectations Regarding Academic Integrity and the LSA Procedures for Resolving Violations of Academic Integrity — plus, for students registered outside LSA, your own school or college’s procedures.