Editing Herzing Issues: Academic Appeals and Due Process (section)

=== HU-090: Recurring Change.org petitions across multiple class years ignored; institutional 'formal complaint process' response characterized as dismissive; pattern of institutional non-response to collective student advocacy ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Pattern of Petition Non-Response
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Provost / Student Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' At least three separate Change.org petitions have been filed by MSN-DE students, each targeting program assessment concerns. First, in September 2024, Student AN filed a petition ([link redacted]) regarding a 45 percent HESI weighting; Herzing's response was to direct students to the individual formal complaint process and schedule a town hall. Second, on December 29, 2025, an anonymous organizer filed a petition ([https://www.change.org/p/remove-the-exit-hesi-benchmark-score]) regarding the exit HESI benchmark, and stated that she planned an EthicsPoint complaint to the Provost. Third, on December 30, 2025, another anonymous filer submitted a petition ([https://c.org/MYjf8ymFCM]) simultaneously to EthicsPoint, Nursing Admin, and Registrar. Anonymous member 157, commenting on December 31, 2025, stated that this happens every semester, that someone always posts a petition, that it will not pass, that the institution will make excuses, and that the class of 2024 had already gone through the same thing without result.

'''Evidence.''' The September 2024 petition link was shared in the group ([link redacted]). Student H, commenting on September 24, 2024, stated that Herzing sent an email in response saying students needed to individually go through the school's formal complaint process, and that they could also attend a town hall. The December 29, 2025 petition is at [https://www.change.org/p/remove-the-exit-hesi-benchmark-score]; the organizer, commenting the same day, stated she planned to speak with EthicsPoint the next day, usually someone in the Provost's Office. The filer of the December 30, 2025 petition stated she had submitted it for review to EthicsPoint, Nursing Admin, and Registrar, and expressed hope for a positive outcome and more equitable and realistic expectations. Anonymous member 157, commenting on December 31, 2025, gave the statement paraphrased above. Source: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (December 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' Anonymous member 157 stated that this happens every semester, that someone always posts a petition, that it will not pass, that the institution will make excuses regardless, and that the class of 2024 had already experienced the same thing. Student H stated that Herzing's email response directed students to individually pursue the school's formal complaint process and noted that a town hall was also offered.

'''Standards.''' HLC Criteria for Accreditation 2.C: institutions must maintain appropriate and fair processes for addressing student concerns. 34 CFR §668.97 (student complaints): institutions must maintain processes to address student complaints. Directing petitioners to an individual complaint process rather than engaging with collective concerns is a systemic response pattern that fails to address programmatic issues raised by multiple cohorts. The recurrence of petitions across multiple class years (2024 and 2025) without programmatic change demonstrates institutional non-responsiveness to documented collective student advocacy.

'''Impact.''' Students who participate in petitions risk retaliation ({{HU|HU-066}}) and invest time and effort in advocacy that produces no programmatic change. The pattern of non-response documented across at least two class years indicates that petition-based advocacy is ineffective at this institution, driving students toward external complaint channels (HLC, state BON, EthicsPoint, legal action), a predictable consequence of institutional dismissal of collective student voice.

'''Notes.''' The town hall response is particularly telling: Student H's dismissive characterization of the response suggests students find the town hall format inadequate for substantive program change. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-045}} (faculty and administration non-responsiveness), {{HU|HU-067}} (EthicsPoint investigation closed inadequately), {{HU|HU-068}} (AI cheating EthicsPoint response). The pattern of petition, then formal complaint referral, then town hall, then no change, documents an institutional loop that deflects rather than resolves collective student concerns.

<span id="HU-163e"></span>