This study focused on the persuasive language used by students in academic misconduct and to probe how these persuasive languages assess the fairness and integrity of the incident review. This study aimed at unveiling the persuasive language and the persuasive strategies employed by students in the observed five cases of academic misconduct and emerging themes focused on the conviction of the school disciplinary authorities from the incident review. Through purposive sampling, five cases of academic misconduct on cheating, loitering, bullying, cutting classes and stealing served as the corpora of the study. While seven school disciplinary authorities served as participants in this research. Consequently, appeal to pathos was the predominant persuasive language employed by students in their academic misconduct. Moreover, the results showed five emerging themes as regards to the students’ persuasive language used in their academic misconduct, minimization of misconduct, externalizing responsibility, denial and shifting blame, justification through promises and victimization rhetoric. Additionally, the response of school disciplinary authorities on persuasive language employed by students during incident review resulted to five essential themes, namely, evaluation of persuasive language, institutional and policy guidelines, fairness vs. empathy in decision making, bias and equity in the disciplinary process and collaboration with stakeholders in evaluating justifications. Lastly, identified authorities affective responses along with the disciplinary actions as to the ways on which students’ persuasive language shape the result of the incident review. Results revealed namely emphasizing integrity and accountability, disappointment, neutrality, doubt, and encourage self-reflection and change. The key findings of this qualitative study opened the door in understanding these strategies and inform the development of targeted interventions to promote academic integrity and ethical decision-making in educational settings.