Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations - Revision history

Docmoates: Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

2026-09-15T16:38:00Z

Add explicit HU anchors before each entry heading

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 15 September 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:

	== Issues ==		== Issues ==
			<span id="HU-067"></span>
	=== HU-067: EthicsPoint investigation of September 2025 academic integrity complaint completed in 7 days with generic closure despite 5 categories of violations, 14 evidence files, and inability to access primary evidence repository ===		=== HU-067: EthicsPoint investigation of September 2025 academic integrity complaint completed in 7 days with generic closure despite 5 categories of violations, 14 evidence files, and inability to access primary evidence repository ===
	{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"		{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
Line 38:		Line 39:
	'''Notes.''' Timeline: filed September 18, then the organization asked for screenshots on September 22 after stating it could not access the Notion workspace, the reporter uploaded evidence on September 22, and the organization closed the investigation on September 25. The organization attempted to call the reporter on September 23 but could not reach him and noted his voicemail was full. Despite this communication gap, the investigation was closed two days later. The reporter's formal request for "Protections for Reporting Students" and a request that the Academic Integrity Committee formally investigate were not addressed in the closure. Cross-reference: {{HU\|HU-026}} (no disciplinary action), {{HU\|HU-065}} (unauthorized recording), {{HU\|HU-066}} (retaliation and stalking).		'''Notes.''' Timeline: filed September 18, then the organization asked for screenshots on September 22 after stating it could not access the Notion workspace, the reporter uploaded evidence on September 22, and the organization closed the investigation on September 25. The organization attempted to call the reporter on September 23 but could not reach him and noted his voicemail was full. Despite this communication gap, the investigation was closed two days later. The reporter's formal request for "Protections for Reporting Students" and a request that the Academic Integrity Committee formally investigate were not addressed in the closure. Cross-reference: {{HU\|HU-026}} (no disciplinary action), {{HU\|HU-065}} (unauthorized recording), {{HU\|HU-066}} (retaliation and stalking).

			<span id="HU-068"></span>
	=== 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 ===		=== 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%"		{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
Line 66:		Line 68:
	'''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).		'''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>
	=== HU-157: Lead: the CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, and that acknowledged the student's legal-hold request; see HU-157a, HU-157b ===		=== HU-157: Lead: the CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, and that acknowledged the student's legal-hold request; see HU-157a, HU-157b ===
	{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"		{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
Line 87:		Line 90:
	'''Notes.''' Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group ({{HU\|HU-155}} through {{HU\|HU-158}}). Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU\|HU-157}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU\|HU-157a}}, {{HU\|HU-157b}}. Cross-references: {{HU\|HU-155}} (retake denied), {{HU\|HU-156}} (proctoring), {{HU\|HU-158}}.		'''Notes.''' Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group ({{HU\|HU-155}} through {{HU\|HU-158}}). Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU\|HU-157}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU\|HU-157a}}, {{HU\|HU-157b}}. Cross-references: {{HU\|HU-155}} (retake denied), {{HU\|HU-156}} (proctoring), {{HU\|HU-158}}.

			<span id="HU-157a"></span>
	=== HU-157a: The CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, with the listed items largely unresolved ===		=== HU-157a: The CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, with the listed items largely unresolved ===
	{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"		{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
Line 115:		Line 119:
	'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU\|HU-157}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. No conclusion is drawn; the documented facts are the closure and the denied or reduced items.		'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU\|HU-157}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. No conclusion is drawn; the documented facts are the closure and the denied or reduced items.

			<span id="HU-157b"></span>
	=== HU-157b: The closure email acknowledged the student's legal-hold (litigation-preservation) request, with the CARES closure occurring contemporaneously with that request ===		=== HU-157b: The closure email acknowledged the student's legal-hold (litigation-preservation) request, with the CARES closure occurring contemporaneously with that request ===
	{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"		{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
Line 143:		Line 148:
	'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU\|HU-157}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. No conclusion is drawn beyond the documented acknowledgment and timing.		'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU\|HU-157}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. No conclusion is drawn beyond the documented acknowledgment and timing.

			<span id="HU-167d"></span>
	=== HU-167d: Nicole Franklin and Stephanie Black, two of the six institutional contacts the reporting student emailed during the active accommodation failure, were simultaneously out of office: Franklin supporting the Birmingham Campus during a transition period and Black on PTO ===		=== HU-167d: Nicole Franklin and Stephanie Black, two of the six institutional contacts the reporting student emailed during the active accommodation failure, were simultaneously out of office: Franklin supporting the Birmingham Campus during a transition period and Black on PTO ===
	{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"		{\| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"

Docmoates: Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

2026-09-15T16:36:58Z

Herzing issue tracker: redacted article from the 306-issue tracker

New page

{{Herzing issue notice}}
'''Herzing Issues: Complaint Handling and Investigations''' collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern how complaints, EthicsPoint reports, and CARES cases were investigated and closed. Each entry keeps the tracker's issue ID, severity, and status. See [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]] for method, severity definitions, and the full index.

== Overview ==
This article covers six tracker entries: one lead record ({{HU|HU-157}}) with two lettered sub-issues ({{HU|HU-157a}}, {{HU|HU-157b}}), two standalone EthicsPoint entries ({{HU|HU-067}}, {{HU|HU-068}}), and one sub-issue of the {{HU|HU-167}} lead ({{HU|HU-167d}}). One entry is rated High severity ({{HU|HU-067}}); the remaining five are rated Medium. All six are CONFIRMED.

The entries span two distinct complaint channels. {{HU|HU-067}} and {{HU|HU-068}} concern EthicsPoint investigations opened in September and December 2025 and closed within seven and five days respectively, both added to the tracker on 2026-05-05. {{HU|HU-157}}, {{HU|HU-157a}}, and {{HU|HU-157b}} concern a CARES case closed on 2026-06-05 in the same email that denied a final exam retake, declined proctoring supports, and acknowledged a student's legal-hold request. {{HU|HU-167d}} concerns a June 13, 2026 accommodation failure during which two of the six institutional contacts the reporting student emailed were simultaneously out of office.

The recurring owners across this topic are EthicsPoint Administration, the Provost's office, and the Senior Director of Academic Operations for the EthicsPoint entries, and Dr. Nicole Franklin together with Dr. Danielle Laban for the CARES-related entries. Dr. Stephanie Black also appears as a contact in {{HU|HU-167d}}. The recurring pattern across the topic is speed of closure relative to the volume of evidence and the number of distinct concerns raised, and closures that bundle unrelated or unresolved items (a retake denial, a proctoring decision, and a legal-hold acknowledgment) into a single communication.

== Issues ==
=== HU-067: EthicsPoint investigation of September 2025 academic integrity complaint completed in 7 days with generic closure despite 5 categories of violations, 14 evidence files, and inability to access primary evidence repository ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| High
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Inadequate Investigation and Resolution
! Date added
| 2026-05-05
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | EthicsPoint Administration / Compliance / Provost
|}
'''Finding.''' The EthicsPoint report filed September 18, 2025 documented at least five distinct categories of alleged violations: (1) unauthorized distribution of exam answers via Notion workspace; (2) distribution of copyrighted textbook content; (3) unauthorized recording of faculty lectures; (4) harassment and retaliation against the reporter; (5) unprofessional conduct including sharing medical images of a minor. The investigation was closed September 25, 2025, seven calendar days after filing, with a single generic statement that did not specifically address any individual category, finding, or protective measure.

'''Evidence.''' EthicsPoint Report (Sept 18, 2025): 14 uploaded evidence files. Reporter follow-up (Sept 22, 12:48 PM): the reporting student stated that the uploaded material was only a fraction of what had been posted, and that there was much more content, questions, and answers involved. Organization (Sept 22, 12:28 PM) stated it was unable to access the Notion URL and requested screenshots instead. Organization closure (Sept 25, 10:47 AM) is quoted below. Source Group: EthicsPoint Reports: Sept 18, 2025 (Report #1); Dec 3, 2025 (Report #2).

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Our investigation has been completed. We were able to meet with the other party involved and address the concerns shared here. We have investigated concerns related to recording lectures and information sharing and have addressed them accordingly. While we do not anticipate further issues, please let us know if you continue to have concerns.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' ACEN Standard 4 requires institutions to maintain and enforce academic integrity policies. The Herzing Student Code of Conduct's progressive discipline model (reprimand, suspension, dismissal) requires documented findings and proportionate sanctions. 34 CFR 668.46 (Clery Act) requires institutions to address reported misconduct with adequate investigative processes. The generic closure language does not indicate whether the Notion workspace was reviewed, whether copyright infringement was referred to legal, whether the harassment and stalking allegations were investigated separately, or whether protective measures were implemented for the reporter.

'''Impact.''' A seven-day investigation of a multi-category complaint with 14 or more evidence files, where the investigating body could not access the primary evidence repository, raises questions about investigative thoroughness. Combined with the documented absence of disciplinary sanctions against the accused student ({{HU|HU-026}}: student remained eligible for student council), the pattern suggests the investigation may have been procedurally deficient. The failure to separately address the harassment, retaliation, and stalking allegations ({{HU|HU-066}}) in the closure response suggests these concerns may not have been independently investigated.

'''Notes.''' Timeline: filed September 18, then the organization asked for screenshots on September 22 after stating it could not access the Notion workspace, the reporter uploaded evidence on September 22, and the organization closed the investigation on September 25. The organization attempted to call the reporter on September 23 but could not reach him and noted his voicemail was full. Despite this communication gap, the investigation was closed two days later. The reporter's formal request for "Protections for Reporting Students" and a request that the Academic Integrity Committee formally investigate were not addressed in the closure. Cross-reference: {{HU|HU-026}} (no disciplinary action), {{HU|HU-065}} (unauthorized recording), {{HU|HU-066}} (retaliation and stalking).

=== 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).

=== HU-157: Lead: the CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, and that acknowledged the student's legal-hold request; see HU-157a, HU-157b ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Lead / index for a split cluster (CARES closure with unresolved items; legal-hold acknowledgment)
! Date added
| 2026-06-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP)
|}
'''Finding.''' Lead entry for the June 5, 2026 closure of the reporting student's CARES case by Dr. Nicole Franklin, following up on a May 13 meeting. Tracked separately: {{HU|HU-157a}} (the case was closed in the same email that denied the Fundamentals final retake, {{HU|HU-155}}, and declined the proctoring supports, {{HU|HU-156}}, with the four summarized items largely answered not approved, not available, or a workaround) and {{HU|HU-157b}} (the same email acknowledged the student's legal-hold request, with the closure occurring contemporaneously with that litigation-preservation request). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.

'''Evidence.''' Email: Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) to the reporting student (cc Danielle Laban), subject CARES Case: Follow-up, June 5, 2026, 8:36 AM; provided by the reporting student.

'''Notes.''' Part of the June 5, 2026 CARES closure group ({{HU|HU-155}} through {{HU|HU-158}}). Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06. Existing references to {{HU|HU-157}} resolve here. Parts: {{HU|HU-157a}}, {{HU|HU-157b}}. Cross-references: {{HU|HU-155}} (retake denied), {{HU|HU-156}} (proctoring), {{HU|HU-158}}.

=== HU-157a: The CARES case was closed in the same email that denied the retake and declined proctoring supports, with the listed items largely unresolved ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| CARES Case Closed With Denied or Unresolved Items
! Date added
| 2026-06-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin / Dr. Danielle Laban
|}
'''Finding.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin closed the reporting student's CARES case in the same June 5, 2026 email that conveyed the denied Fundamentals final retake and the declined proctoring supports. The four summarized items (computer funds from Financial Aid, an assigned proctor, the exam retake, and a ProctorU pre-test) were largely answered with not approved, not available, or a student-side workaround, yet the case was closed.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026) provided updates on the May 13 meeting items, with the assigned proctor not an available option, the exam retake not approved, and the ProctorU pre-test not a viable option, followed by closing the CARES case. Source Group: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES follow-up, June 5, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>With this email, I will be closing your CARES case.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity) holds that a student-complaint or CARES process should resolve or clearly route the issues raised before closure, and closure should not foreclose remaining avenues. Closing the case while the retake was denied without a stated reason ({{HU|HU-155}}) and proctoring support was reduced to a workaround ({{HU|HU-156}}) is a process concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-157}}. See {{HU|HU-155}}, {{HU|HU-156}}.

'''Impact.''' With the case closed, the reporting student may lose a centralized channel for the unresolved items and may have to re-escalate separately.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-157}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. No conclusion is drawn; the documented facts are the closure and the denied or reduced items.

=== HU-157b: The closure email acknowledged the student's legal-hold (litigation-preservation) request, with the CARES closure occurring contemporaneously with that request ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Legal Hold Acknowledged Contemporaneously With Case Closure
! Date added
| 2026-06-05 (split 2026-06-06)
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin / Dr. Danielle Laban
|}
'''Finding.''' In the same June 5, 2026 email, Dr. Nicole Franklin stated that the institution had notified the appropriate parties regarding the reporting student's legal-hold request. The CARES closure thus occurred contemporaneously with a litigation-preservation request; closing the CARES case does not extinguish the institution's preservation obligations.

'''Evidence.''' Dr. Nicole Franklin (June 5, 2026) stated that the institution had notified the appropriate parties regarding the legal-hold request, in the same email closing the CARES case. Source Group: Dr. Nicole Franklin CARES follow-up, June 5, 2026.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>Additionally, we have notified the appropriate parties regarding your legal hold request.</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' A litigation-hold (legal-hold) request triggers duties to preserve potentially relevant records; administrative closure of a complaint case does not extinguish those preservation obligations. Documented as a factual record of the acknowledgment and timing. Lead: {{HU|HU-157}}.

'''Impact.''' The contemporaneous timing of the CARES closure and the legal-hold acknowledgment is a documented fact relevant to records preservation; the institution remains obligated to preserve relevant records notwithstanding the closure.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-157}} (lead). Split 2026-06-06. No conclusion is drawn beyond the documented acknowledgment and timing.

=== HU-167d: Nicole Franklin and Stephanie Black, two of the six institutional contacts the reporting student emailed during the active accommodation failure, were simultaneously out of office: Franklin supporting the Birmingham Campus during a transition period and Black on PTO ===
{| class="wikitable" style="width:100%"
! style="width:14em" | Severity
| Medium
! style="width:14em" | Status
| CONFIRMED
|-
! Issue type
| Key Escalation Contacts Simultaneously Out of Office During Active Accommodation Failure
! Date added
| 2026-06-13
|-
! Owner
| colspan="3" | Dr. Nicole Franklin (Senior Director of Academic Operations) / Dr. Stephanie Black (Dean of Prelicensure Nursing) / Herzing Academic Affairs
|}
'''Finding.''' When the reporting student emailed six institutional contacts at approximately 3:39 PM on Saturday June 13, 2026 to report an active accommodation failure, at least two of the six contacts were unavailable and had auto-replies enabled. Dr. Nicole Franklin's auto-reply stated she was currently supporting the Birmingham Campus during a period of transition. Dr. Stephanie Black's auto-reply stated she was out of the office on PTO and would respond as soon as possible. Both are senior institutional figures who would normally be expected to provide oversight or intervention in a student-accommodation crisis. Their simultaneous absence during a weekend accommodation failure left the student without real-time institutional recourse from at least two of his escalation contacts.

'''Evidence.''' Screenshot of the reporting student's Herzing inbox (June 13, 2026, 3:39 PM) showed auto-reply emails from Nicole Franklin and Stephanie Black visible in the open draft compose window. Source Group: seven ProctorU chat and screen screenshots (Saturday June 13, 2026, 3:27 PM to 3:44 PM CDT); email from the reporting student to Dr. Danielle Laban, Dr. Nicole Franklin, Dr. Raywattie Prashad, David Steele, Dr. Stephanie Black, and Dr. Tanetshia Brown (sent approximately 3:39 PM, June 13, 2026); a follow-up email from the reporting student confirming the exam was completed after a delay of over one hour and fifteen minutes; provided by the reporting student.

'''Reported statement.'''
<blockquote>[Franklin auto-reply:] I am currently supporting the Birmingham Campus during a period of transition. [Black auto-reply:] I will respond to your message as soon as... [PTO notice visible].</blockquote>

'''Standards.''' HLC Criterion 3.D requires student support services that are adequate, accessible, and appropriately staffed. 34 CFR 668.14 addresses administrative capability, including accessible student services. Two senior institutional contacts being simultaneously unavailable on a weekend during an active accommodation failure raises an institutional-coverage and student-support concern. Recorded as a staffing-availability and escalation-path concern. Lead: {{HU|HU-167}}.

'''Impact.''' The simultaneous absence of two senior contacts reduced the student's realistic escalation paths during a time-sensitive accommodation failure on a Saturday.

'''Notes.''' Sub-issue of {{HU|HU-167}} (lead). CONFIRMED from inbox screenshots showing auto-replies. Documented 2026-06-13.

== See also ==
* [[Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Proctoring and Testing]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Student Conduct and Retaliation]]
* [[Herzing Issues: ADA and Disability Accommodations]]
* [[Herzing Issues: Workload and Student Communication]]
* [[Herzing University Issue Tracker]]

[[Category:Herzing University]]
[[Category:Herzing University Issues]]