Editing Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations (section)

=== HU-068: EthicsPoint investigation of December 2025 AI cheating complaint closed in 5 days without individual enforcement; university acknowledged systemic AI use but responded only with general education initiative ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inadequate Investigation and Enforcement
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | EthicsPoint Administration / Senior Director Academic Operations / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' The reporting student filed an EthicsPoint report on December 3, 2025 documenting AI use in student discussion posts with specific forensic evidence: ChatGPT tracking parameters in citation URLs and hallucinated or dead-link citations. Thirteen screenshots were uploaded as evidence. The university acknowledged the evidence and admitted AI use is systemic and "intensifying," but closed the investigation in five days with no individual enforcement actions. The sole remedial response was a general AI ethics education initiative.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (Dec 3, 2025): 13 screenshots showing ChatGPT tracking parameters and hallucinated citations. Organization (Dec 4, 2025) asked for a specific course and section. Organization closure (Dec 8, 2025) acknowledged the evidence as questionable citations submitted in various courses over the past several months and admitted that AI use is intensifying and that not every case gets caught. Source Group: EthicsPoint Reports: Sept 18, 2025 (Report #1); Dec 3, 2025 (Report #2).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Faculty address the use of AI individually with students when it is recognized, though it is acknowledged not every case gets caught. AI use is intensifying, and the University has taken steps to help students learn how to use it ethically and responsibly. For example, we have developed and deployed assignments in all of our general education courses designed to teach students what AI is, how it can be used, how it cannot be used, and the consequences of violating the University's policy on AI.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' The Herzing AI Policy (Handbook p.12) and ACEN Standard 4.6 require that academic integrity policies be enforced consistently, not merely promulgated. The university's response implicitly acknowledges a gap between policy (AI use prohibited or restricted) and enforcement, since not every case gets caught. Providing educational materials about AI ethics without investigating specific documented instances of AI use constitutes a failure to enforce the policy. 34 CFR 602.16(a)(1)(ix) treats an acknowledgment of systemic non-enforcement while claiming compliance as an accreditation risk.

'''Impact.''' The university's response confirms three concerning facts: AI use in student work is systemic and intensifying, enforcement is acknowledged to be incomplete, and the institutional response is educational rather than disciplinary. For a nursing program, AI-generated discussion posts mean students are not engaging with clinical concepts at the depth required for patient safety competency. The pattern of non-enforcement mirrors {{HU|HU-026}} (exam answer posting) and {{HU|HU-067}} (generic investigation closure), suggesting a systemic institutional pattern.

'''Notes.''' The university's acknowledgment that AI use is intensifying and that not every case gets caught is itself a significant admission. Combined with the reporter's 13 screenshots of specific forensic evidence and the fact that no individual enforcement actions were taken, this suggests the university is aware of a program-level academic integrity failure but has chosen educational outreach over disciplinary enforcement. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-027}} (original ChatGPT concern), {{HU|HU-037}} and {{HU|HU-051}} (broader academic integrity patterns).

<span id="HU-157"></span>