Editing Herzing Issues: Ethics and Credential Representation (section)

=== HU-105: Chilling effect on student speech: students documented fear that Herzing monitors the Facebook group and that speaking out results in institutional retaliation ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! Status
| POSSIBLE
|-
! Issue type
| Student Speech Suppression / Institutional Surveillance Concern
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dean of Nursing / Student Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' According to the tracker, an anonymous member of the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group stated on July 5, 2023 that comments shared in the group are often relayed to Herzing and that members take a risk by speaking out. This statement documents a fear among students that the group is monitored by the institution and that speech critical of the program creates institutional risk for the speaker. Whether Herzing actively monitors the group or not, the reporter states that the perception of surveillance creates a chilling effect on student advocacy. The reporter ties this perception to documented retaliation against the reporting student after his EthicsPoint report ({{HU|HU-066}}) and to a recurring pattern of petition dismissals ({{HU|HU-090}}), and notes that the group's extensive use of anonymous posting (over 1,000 anonymous posts documented) is consistent with students taking precautions to conceal their identities when raising concerns.

'''Evidence.''' The anonymous member's July 5, 2023 statement, paraphrased above. {{HU|HU-066}} (existing issue): retaliation against the reporting student following a good-faith EthicsPoint report. {{HU|HU-090}}: recurring petitions reported as dismissed without substantive engagement. Anonymous posting pattern: the Facebook group's extensive use of anonymous posting (over 1,000 anonymous posts across the archive) is cited as behavior consistent with a perceived surveillance and retaliation environment. Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Exhaustive Line-by-Line Review: 34,887 lines, 1,350 posts, 14,112 comments, 8 passes (Volume 7).

'''Reported statement.''' An anonymous member of the Facebook group stated that what members say in the groups is often shared with Herzing and that speaking out carries significant risk.

'''Standards.''' First Amendment principles in higher education (Healy v. James, 408 U.S. 169, 1972): students at institutions receiving federal funds have protected associational and speech rights; institutional surveillance of student communications and retaliation for protected speech implicates these rights. 34 CFR §668.46 (campus security and safety): institutions may not create environments that discourage reporting of concerns. ACEN Standard 2 (Governance): students must have meaningful channels for raising program concerns without fear of retaliation. If the institutional environment has created, whether through actual surveillance or documented retaliation, a chilling effect on student speech, this undermines the integrity of all student feedback mechanisms including course evaluations, town halls, and complaint processes.

'''Impact.''' A chilling effect on student speech means the institution receives artificially suppressed negative feedback, creating a false picture of student satisfaction. Students who believe speaking out is risky are less likely to file EthicsPoint reports, contact accreditors, or participate in town halls, making it harder for the institution to identify and address legitimate program deficiencies. The reporter states that the documented pattern of retaliation ({{HU|HU-066}}) and petition dismissal ({{HU|HU-090}}) provides a rational basis for the stated fear, meaning this is presented as a concern grounded in observed institutional behavior rather than perception alone.

'''Notes.''' Marked POSSIBLE because direct evidence of institutional monitoring of the Facebook group is not confirmed; only student perception is documented. The tracker states that the perception itself is the finding: when students believe they are surveilled and that advocacy is risky, the educational environment is materially harmed. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation post-EthicsPoint), {{HU|HU-090}} (petition non-response pattern), {{HU|HU-067}} (EthicsPoint investigation reported as closed inadequately).

<span id="HU-119"></span>