Plagiarism and AI at Texas A&M: the F* grade and how the star comes off

The short answer

Texas A&M can write the words “FAILURE DUE TO ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT” onto your transcript, and only the star in the F* grade is removable — the F stays for good. The one published route to removing the star is completing the Academic Integrity Development Program, and the decision belongs to one person: the Director of the Aggie Honor System Office.

On AI, the rule is unusually direct. Generative AI is named inside the definitions of Cheating and Fabrication, and the default is that you may not use it unless the instructor for that particular course has said you may. There is no university-wide permission, and there is no university-wide disclosure form either — it is your syllabus that decides.

The F* grade, and how the star comes off

The Aggie Honor System Rules (Student Rule 20) set this out in a section headed “The ‘F*’ Grade Designation”. The page prints no effective date; the only date on it is the site footer, © 2026 Texas A&M University. The rule stub in the Student Rules carries “(Revised: 2025)”.

“A student who is assessed a grade of ‘F*’ shall have it documented on their transcript with the notation ‘FAILURE DUE TO ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT’ or other similar language approved by the Director for the Aggie Honor System Office. The F* is recorded by the Office of the Registrar immediately upon a finding of academic misconduct. The grade of F* is intended to denote that the student has been penalized for failing to uphold the values of academic integrity at Texas A&M University. An F* shall be treated in the same way as an F for the purposes of calculating the Grade Point Average and determination of academic standing. A student with an F* is automatically on Honor Violation Probation.”

Two things there are worth slowing down on. The notation lands immediately upon a finding — not after appeals are exhausted. And an F* is not an extra penalty on top of a failing grade for GPA purposes; it is the same arithmetic with a label attached.

The removal rule is short, and it is the most useful sentence on the page:

“The student may have the grade of F* removed and permanently replaced with the grade of F. The decision to remove the grade of F* shall rest with the Director of the AHSO and is contingent upon the successful completion of the Academic Integrity Development Program (AIDP). The Director’s decision is final.”

So the star is a conditional mark and the F beneath it is not. If you are weighing whether the programme is worth doing, that is the trade: an hour of coursework against a transcript line that spells out why you failed.

What the AIDP actually is, from the Honor System Office’s own student page:

“AIDP is a one-month long course, completed asynchronously online every month of the year, that strives to provide students with education and resources for integrity, ethics, writing, research, and real-world implications of ethical and academic misconduct. Completion of AIDP is a requirement to be removed from Honor Violation Probation. … There is not currently a fee or charge for the course.”

And it has a hard deadline, in § 20.1.4.3:

“There is an automatic one-year time limit to complete the Academic Integrity Development Program. The one-year limit shall be calculated from the time that the sanction was applied, and will be the longer of one year past the original sanction date or one year past the date that the appeal is exhausted or finalized. In unusual circumstances, the Director of the AHSO may grant an extension of time.”

Note that the clock runs from whichever is later — so appealing does not eat into your year. Missing the deadline costs you something concrete: “Failure to complete sanctions within the time specified will result in the imposition of Honor Violation Probation and a registration hold until the requirements are completed.”

The F* is not the automatic penalty for a first violation. Rule 20 § 20.1.4.2 lists it as one option among several: “A grade reduction for the course; A zero on the assignment; A requirement to participate in extra requirements for a course; A requirement to complete the Academic Integrity Development Program; Placement on Honor Violation Probation; F* in the course and Honor Violation Probation; Some combination of these”. The framing rule is that “the penalty for a first violation shall be commensurate with the violation”, and that both more and less severe penalties are available “if the facts and/or circumstances warrant”.

A second violation changes the venue and the stakes: “When it is determined that the student has a previous violation on record, the case must be referred to the Honor Council for adjudication. Second violations may result in separation from the university.” Separation — suspension or expulsion — can only be assigned by the Honor Council; the rule says plainly that “instructors and AHSO administrators may not impose these sanctions.”

Honor Violation Probation

This travels with the F* automatically, and students routinely find it more disruptive than the grade. It “takes effect immediately upon a finding of academic misconduct”, and it can be imposed on its own or alongside anything else. The rule states the status bluntly: “Students on Honor Violation Probation are considered NOT ‘In Good Standing’with the University.”

The listed restrictions, verbatim from Rule 20:

• “Ineligibility to hold an office in any student organization recognized by the university or to hold any elected or appointed position within the university.”
• “Ineligibility to represent the university to anyone outside the university community in any way, including representing the university at any official function, intercollegiate athletics or any forms of intercollegiate competition or representation.”
• “Ineligibility to receive a university-administered scholarship or fellowship when the ‘Honor Violation Probation’ is in place for longer than one semester. Some scholarships adhere to more strict guidelines, and, therefore, ineligibility may result from a lesser length of time”.
• “Ineligibility to order an Aggie Ring, to pre-register for classes, or to receive a diploma.”

And the rule adds that further conditions may follow “depending on the timing, nature and severity of the misconduct”, giving as examples “inability to receive an official transcript, inability to participate in Education Abroad programs, and/or inability to participate in commencement exercises.”

If you are close to graduating, read that list again. A finding late in a final year can reach the diploma and the ceremony, not just the GPA.

One more thing that surprises people, from the Honor System Office FAQ: you cannot exit through the registrar.

“Accused students may not Q-drop or withdraw from a course with a pending allegation or finding of academic misconduct. If the paperwork has already gone through to Q-drop or withdraw from a class before an academic misconduct violation is reported, the course will be reinstated on the student’s transcriptand designated grade sanctions applied.”

AI is named in the rule itself, twice

Many universities keep AI in guidance and leave the rule generic. Texas A&M does not: generative AI appears inside two of the nine operative categories of misconduct.

Under Cheating (§ 20.1.2.2.1), after the general definition:

“Unauthorized use of Generative AI. To maintain a culture of integrity and respect, generative AI tools should not be used in the completion of course assignments unless an instructor for a given course specifically authorizes their use. Instructors may approve of using generative AI tools in the academic setting for specific goals; however, these tools should be used only with the explicit and clear permission of each individual instructor, and then, only in the ways allowed by the instructor.”

Read the default carefully. It is not “AI is fine unless banned”. It is the opposite: prohibited unless that instructor has authorised it, and then only in the ways they allowed. Permission from one course does not carry to another.

Under Fabrication (§ 20.1.2.2.2):

“The intentional invention of any information or citation on an assignment or document. This includes but is not limited to using generative artificial intelligence and large language models (AI) or other electronic resources in an unauthorized manner to create academic work and represent it as one’s own.”

That second one is where invented citations land — the classic failure mode of a chatbot asked for sources. If you used a tool to find references, open every one of them before you submit; our guide to verifying AI citations walks through how.

The plagiarism definition (§ 20.1.2.2.5) is worth quoting for two words in it:

“The appropriation of another entity’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit; intentionally, knowingly or carelesslypresenting the work of another entity as one’s own without crediting the author or creator.”

“Entity”, not “person”. And “carelessly” sits alongside “intentionally” — so a citation you meant to add and forgot is inside the definition. Intent affects the sanction, not whether a violation exists.

The examples given include a habit worth naming, because it is easy to fall into:

“Writers should not include books, papers, or any other type of source in a bibliography, ‘works cited’ list, or a ‘works consulted’ list unless those materials were actually used in the research. This prohibited practice of citing unused works is sometimes referred to as ‘padding.’”

A bibliography swollen with things you never opened is a listed offence at Texas A&M, not merely bad form.

The umbrella definition (§ 20.1.2.2) covers “cheating, fabrication, falsification, multiple submissions, plagiarism, complicity, abuse and misuse of access, or violating college, program, departmental, or course rules”, and ends with a protection: “It does not include honest errors or honest differences in interpretations or judgments of data.”

On disclosure, there is no university-wide required form of words. The rule delegates it — use is permitted “only with the explicit and clear permission of each individual instructor, and then, only in the ways allowed by the instructor” — and the University Writing Center adds: “Some instructors who want-or even require-students to use AI will have specific rules about how you acknowledge that use, so be sure to follow those guidelines.” (The missing spaces around the dashes are in the original.) The only mandated wording anywhere in the rule is the honor pledge instructors are recommended, not required, to print on assignments: “On my honor, as an Aggie, I have neither given nor received unauthorized aid on this academic work.”

Our AI disclosure statement guide gives a general shape, but at Texas A&M the syllabus governs — and the rule adds a warning about relying on its absence: “All syllabi shall contain a section that states the Aggie Honor Code and refers the student to the Aggie Honor System Rules and Procedures on the web. Omission of the Aggie Code of Honor on a syllabus does not constitute a reason for appeal.”

You must be able to authenticate your work

Texas A&M does not publish the name of any similarity or plagiarism-detection product as its institutional tool. We looked at the Aggie Honor System Office site, the Canvas/LMS support site’s list of centrally funded tools, the Center for Teaching Excellence including its generative-AI section, and the IT site: none of them names Turnitin, iThenticate, SafeAssign or any comparable product. Whether a Turnitin AI indicator is switched on or off is likewise not stated anywhere we could read.

Be careful how you read that. It means Texas A&M does not publisha decision, not that no tool is in use in any course. An individual instructor’s practice is not something the university documents centrally.

What the rule does put on you is an authentication duty, and this is the single most important sentence in Rule 20 for anyone writing a thesis (§ 20.1.2.2):

“Texas A&M University students are responsible for authenticating all submitted work and documentation. If asked, students must be able to produce proof that the item submitted is the work of that student and/or authentic. Students must keep appropriate records at all times.The inability to authenticate one’s work or documentation, should the instructor request it, is sufficient grounds to initiate an academic misconduct case.”

That is a standing obligation, not a rule that activates once you are suspected. Not being able to show your process is itself enough to start a case. So the defence has to be built while you write, not afterwards.

The University Writing Center — the Division of Academic Affairs, not the Honor System Office — publishes exactly that advice:

“Document your writing process— One of the best ways to convince someone that your work is your own creation, should it come down to that, is to have evidence of your creative process. Very few people can generate academic writing without first writing notes and drafts. Therefore, keep any notes (or mind maps or lists or whatever) you’ve made in the process of researching and writing your assignments, as well as different versions of your work as you write and edit. One way to do that might be to write in either a Google doc or a Word doc connected to OneDrive where you can access a version history. Or you can just save multiple versions as you work.”

And on getting the policy in writing:

“Understand each of your instructors’ AI policies — If your instructor has not specifically written an AI policy into the course syllabus or the specific instructions for an assignment, email and ask for the policy. Emailing is preferable to asking your instructor in person because email will provide you a record of the instructor’s response.”

And on knowing your own material: “someone who has actually written a paper or assignment response on their own without relying on GenAI, should be able to speak coherently about their subject matter. That’s one reason why an instructor may ask to talk to you about possible academic integrity violations.”

The same page is where Texas A&M comes closest to an institutional view on detectors. It is the Writing Center’s view, on an undated page, and we quote it as theirs:

“Please be aware that many AI detectors have been deemed ineffective even by their own creators.”

The page is unusually candid about the position a student is in: “Students, however, are navigating rapidly changing policies and may find themselves confused about what use is acceptable and rightfully worried about the repercussions of a false accusation,” and “Because so many platforms are adding AI into their programming, it can be difficult to know if your instructor might consider using one to be in violation of their policy, even if you’re doing your best to follow the rules. Additionally, as we all learn more about how AI ‘sounds,’ instructors may be more likely to assume work is AI-generated.”

That last clause is the real risk for a lot of readers of this site: not a tool, but an impression. If you write in a second language, or in the plain register that academic style guides push you towards, you can read as “AI-sounding” without having used anything. Our notes on AI detectors and non-native speakers and on proving you wrote it yourself cover what to keep and how to present it.

On records, what the rule protects is the case file, not your submitted work (§ 20.1.3.2): “Information collected via the AHSO reporting system will be treated as confidential and is protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974. The report is an educational record. AHSO staff, an accused student, and those with an educational need to know may view the report.” Whether student work is retained in any comparison database, and whether there is an opt-out, is not published.

Tutors and editors are expressly allowed

This is a permission, and it is rarer in university rules than it should be. Rule 20 § 20.1.2.2.5:

“Students are permitted to use the services of a tutor (paid or unpaid), a professional editor, or the University Writing Center to assist them in completing assigned work, unless the instructor explicitly prohibits such assistance. If the student uses such services, the resulting product must be the original work of the student.”

Two limits ride along with it. The instructor can switch it off for a given course, so check. And the output still has to be yours — an editor who rewrites your argument has taken you outside the permission, even though hiring the editor was fine.

Note also that this permission is about human help. It does not extend to generative AI, which has its own default one section earlier: prohibited unless the instructor authorises.

Preponderance of the information

Most US institutions say “preponderance of the evidence”. Texas A&M says something slightly different, and says it repeatedly (§ 20.2.4.1):

“In all Administrative and Honor Council proceedings, the accused student shall be presumed not responsible until it is proven that a violation of the university rules occurred by a preponderance of the informationstandard.”

“In all initial Honor Council proceedings, the burden of proof shall rest with the Reporter of the violation, and said burden of proof shall be by a preponderance of the information. Preponderance of the information is defined as the greater weight and degree of credible information admitted in the proceeding. The Honor Council Panel’s determination shall be made on the basis of whether it is more likely than notthat the accused student violated the Aggie Honor System Rule(s) for which they are charged.”

The practical content is the same as elsewhere — more likely than not — but two features matter to you. The burden is on the person who reported it, not on you to prove innocence. And the presumption is written down: presumed not responsible.

The same standard applies at the instructor stage, before anything reaches a panel: “If the faculty member determines that there has been a violation of the Honor System Rules, as demonstrated by a preponderance of the information, the reporter may either file the report following the steps of the informal resolution process, file the report through the Administrative Conference process, or file the report and refer the case to the Honor Council for adjudication.”

You also get preparation time: “All charges shall be presented to the accused student in written form. The accused student is given at least 3 university business daysto prepare for Honor Council proceedings.”

Who decides, and the three routes

Reporting is mandatory and quick (§ 20.1.3.1): “In a case of suspected academic misconduct, the reporter must complete a Violation Report Form and submit it to the AHSO as soon as practicable, preferably within ten (10) university business daysof discovery of the alleged incident.”

From there, the reporter picks one of three routes:

• Informal resolution, adjudicated by the reporter themselves. “There is no basis for appealing in the informal resolution process.” That is the trade-off — the fastest route is also the one with no appeal.
• An Administrative Conference in the Aggie Honor System Office.
• The Honor Council— a hearing panel of three, from a body of “undergraduate students, graduate students, university staff, and at least two faculty members from each college-level unit”. Faculty members and all Separation Appeals Panel members “are appointed by the Office of the Provost”. The office says: “An Honor Council hearing is where your case is put before a panel of three Honor Council members consisting of students, faculty, and/or staff. … The full range of sanctions is available to a hearing panel.”

The first two routes are closed if you have a prior finding: “This is not an option if the AHSO determines that this student has a previous violation on record.” A repeat case goes to the Honor Council whether anyone wants it to or not.

Advisor rights, from the separation-appeal provisions: “The student shall have the right to have one person serve as a personal advisor/counselor to consult during the student proceedings. … A personal advisor may appear at the proceedings with the accused student to provide advice but may not represent the accused student or directly question or cross-examine witnesses, except in a case where the university is represented by an attorney.” Bring someone; know that they sit beside you rather than speak for you.

One provision added in the 2025-era text is worth knowing if you are in a large class where a whole cohort has been flagged (§ 20.1.3.3):

“Any academic integrity cases that involve allegations of students engaged in large-scale (20 or more students) allegations of academic dishonesty of any kind within a single section or course must be reviewed by the Dean or designee and the department head before students are contactedby the instructor or the Aggie Honor System Office.”

The stated purpose is to confirm that “the allegations are well-founded and supported by sufficient information” and that “students were properly informed of academic integrity expectations, typically included in the course syllabus”. If you are one of many contacted at once, that pre-review is supposed to have happened; it is a fair thing to ask about.

Appeal: three grounds, five days

Appeals exist for Administrative Conferences and Honor Council proceedings only. The three grounds, verbatim (§ 20.2.5.1):

• “Substantial new information not available at the time of the original hearing”— “sufficient to alter a decision or other relevant facts not brought out in the original hearing, because such information and/or facts were not known to the person appealing at the time”.
• “A violation of due process rights”— whether the hearing “was conducted fairly in light of the charges and information presented, and in conformity with prescribed procedures giving the accused student a reasonable opportunity to prepare and present rebuttal of allegations”.
• “The sanction is not commensurate with the violation”— whether the sanctions “were appropriate for the violation of the Aggie Honor System Rules which the student was found responsible”.

“A student has five (5) university business daysfrom the date of notification of the sanction to file an appeal with the Aggie Honor System Office.” Five business days is short. If you think you will appeal, start writing the day the notification arrives.

What happens next: “If the Director or designee finds that there is adequate basis for an appeal, the Director or designee will appoint a group of three Honor Council members to review the written appeal. Appeals not involving suspension or expulsion from the university will be a file review only.” For most cases there is no second hearing — the written submission is the whole of your case, so it has to carry everything.

And it ends there: “Decisions of the appeal reviewers, director, or designee are final,” and “students are limited to one appeal per case filed against them.”

There is no side door through the grade-complaint process: “A course grade assigned as the result of a sanction cannot be appealed through the grade dispute process described in Student Rules 48 or 59.”

One protection is real and worth using (§ 20.2.5.6):

“Following the notification of intent to appeal and/or pending the appeal hearing, any sanctions issued by the instructor or Honor Council shall be stayed until the appeal process is complete, unless the university has determined, in a case involving suspension or expulsion, that the continued presence on-campus of the charged student poses a continuing danger to persons or property or an ongoing threat of disrupting the academic process.”

Sanctions are paused while you appeal, except in danger cases. Since the F* is recorded “immediately upon a finding”, filing the intent to appeal promptly is how you keep the record from moving before your argument has been heard.

How many cases, and what the number does not say

Texas A&M publishes one figure, on the Aggie Honor System Office’s page for faculty. The page carries no date; the footer reads © 2026.

“The AHSO processes more than 1200 cases of academic misconduct every year. We will facilitate the process from start to finish for Informal Process, Administrative Conference, and Honor Council proceedings.”

Take it with its limits, because they matter:

• It counts cases processed, not students found responsible — some cases end with no violation.
• It is not broken down by year, by category, or by outcome, so nothing in it tells you how many involved AI.
• It carries no date, so “every year” is not anchored to a particular one.

The Honor System Office’s own charter requires the Director to “Provide an annual report and Aassess the effectiveness of the Academic Integrity Development Program and make changes as appropriate” — the typo is in the original. But we could find no published annual report or statistics page on the office’s site. So the reports are required and, as far as we can tell, not published. If you want to know how common AI allegations are at Texas A&M specifically, there is no public number to consult.

Before you submit

• Get the AI policy for each course, in writing. The default in Rule 20 is prohibited unless that instructor authorises it, and the Writing Center recommends email precisely so you have the record.
• Keep your drafts and notes as you go. Authentication is a standing duty under § 20.1.2.2, and being unable to authenticate is itself grounds to open a case.
• Open every source in your bibliography. Padding a reference list with unread works is a named offence, and fabricated citations fall under Fabrication.
• Use the tutor or editor permission knowingly. It is allowed unless your instructor prohibits it, and the finished work still has to be yours.
• If a finding lands, diarise two dates. Five business days to appeal, and one year to complete the AIDP if you want the star off — measured from the later of the sanction or the end of the appeal.
• Do not try to drop the course. A Q-drop or withdrawal will be reversed and the grade sanction applied.

If you want a private read on your own text before you hand it in, our AI check is free up to 1,500 words, with no account and no name. It is a second opinion and nothing more: our published error rates are measured on English and German corpora, and no detector — ours included — produces proof.

Sources

• Texas A&M University: Student Rule 20 — Aggie Honor System Rules and Procedures — no effective or last-revised date printed on the page; the rule stub at student-rules.tamu.edu carries “(Revised: 2025)”. The Aggie Honor System Office states it “has the authority to modify the rules set forth in this document”.
• Texas A&M University: Aggie Code of Honor — the page states the Code was revised in 2003.
• Aggie Honor System Office: Students — the AIDP and the hearing process — undated; footer © 2026.
• Aggie Honor System Office: Faculty — the “more than 1200 cases” figure — undated; footer © 2026.
• Aggie Honor System Office: FAQ — the Q-drop and withdrawal rule — undated.
• Texas A&M University Writing Center (Division of Academic Affairs): Protecting Against Accusations of Inappropriate AI Use — undated; footer © 2026. Guidance, not a rule.

This page is orientation, not legal advice. What binds you is your course syllabus, the Aggie Code of Honor and Student Rule 20 as published by the Aggie Honor System Office.