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

=== HU-166a: Conflicting appeal-status instructions delivered within the same email thread: Shannon Bishop told the reporting student the appeal was incomplete and required resubmission with IT documentation, while Dr. Raywattie Prashad stated in the same thread the appeal had already been advanced to the next level for processing ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Conflicting Appeal-Status Instructions Within the Same Thread
! Date added
| 2026-06-09
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) / Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair)
|}
'''Finding.''' In the same email thread, Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor) told the reporting student that his appeal was missing two required items and directed him to contact Herzing IT and resubmit. In a later message in the same thread, Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair) stated she had already received the appeal, it had been moved to the next level for processing based on the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course, and asked the reporting student to allow time for it to be sent to him. These two responses are mutually contradictory: Bishop's treats the appeal as procedurally incomplete and returns it to the student for action; Prashad's treats the same appeal as received and in progress, with no reference to the deficiencies Bishop identified. A student who followed Bishop's instruction would resubmit, potentially disrupting Prashad's processing; a student who relied on Prashad's statement would take no further action and risk having the appeal denied for missing documentation.

'''Evidence.''' Shannon Bishop email: "While I do see the exam registration documentation, the other 2 items are missing. Please connect with Herzing IT ... You would then need to resubmit the appeal with this documentation." Dr. Raywattie Prashad email in the same thread: "I received the appeal and this has already been moved to next level to process the link for the exam based on the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course. Please allow for processing time for this to be sent to you." Source: Email thread among Shannon Bishop (Senior Student Services Advisor), the reporting student, and Dr. Raywattie Prashad (Program Chair of Online Prelicensure Nursing); cc'ing IT Support (ServiceNow), Dr. Danielle Laban, and Dr. Stephanie Black; provided by the reporting student, June 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Bishop:] Please connect with Herzing IT at assist@herzing.edu and inform them of the situation. You would then need to resubmit the appeal. [Prashad, same thread:] I received the appeal and this has already been moved to next level to process the link for the exam based on the extenuating circumstances process posted in the course.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, including clear, fair, and consistently applied appeal processes); 34 C.F.R. 668.14 (administrative capability, including coherent student-services processes). Delivering contradictory instructions about an appeal's status and required next steps within the same thread, with neither party coordinating with the other, leaves the student without a reliable understanding of the appeal's status or what action is required. Lead: {{HU|HU-166}}.

'''Impact.''' The reporting student is in an active, time-sensitive appeal for an exam failure with academic-standing consequences. The conflicting instructions created immediate ambiguity about whether resubmission was required or whether the appeal was already progressing, with no way to determine which instruction was authoritative.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-166}} (lead). CONFIRMED from first-party email evidence. Documented 2026-06-09.

<span id="HU-166b"></span>