Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity
| This page reproduces entries from a student maintained issue tracker concerning Herzing University's MSN-DE prelicensure nursing program. Each entry carries the tracker's own status label, almost always CONFIRMED or POSSIBLE. Entries marked POSSIBLE are reported concerns pending verification, not findings. Student names have been replaced with consistent pseudonyms (Student A, Student B, and so on); the author is referred to as the reporting student. Faculty and staff are identified by name and role as they appear in the underlying records. See Herzing University Issue Tracker for method, severity definitions, and sources. |
Herzing Issues: Academic Integrity collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern academic integrity. 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 gathers sixteen tracker entries on academic integrity, added between April 30, 2026 and August 4, 2026, with underlying evidence dating from December 2022 through August 2026. Ten entries carry a High severity rating, five carry Medium, and one, the HESI secure browser bypass at HU-185, is rated Critical. All but two entries are marked CONFIRMED; HU-089 is marked POSSIBLE pending institutional verification, and HU-162 carries a long qualified status describing which parts of the record are confirmed and which require follow up.
The entries cluster around several recurring threads. The lead entry HU-026 and its sub-issues HU-026a, HU-026b, and HU-026c document a single EthicsPoint report about exam-answer distribution that produced no disciplinary sanction, left the accused student eligible for student council, and closed in seven days without apparent access to the primary evidence. A second thread, spanning HU-027 and HU-115, documents AI-generated discussion posts identified through forensic tracking parameters in citation URLs, in both a program-level report and a named, evidence-specific follow-up report. A third thread traces HESI exam-content sharing from a single cohort (HU-037) to multiple cohorts and programs (HU-051) to years of open discussion in a public Facebook group (HU-078), and on to external commercial actors selling exam answers (HU-106) and advertising ghostwriting services (HU-107) directly to Herzing students. Recurring owners across these entries include the Senior Director of Academic Operations, the Program Chair, and the Academic Integrity Office, with Elsevier and ProctorU named as owners on the HESI-platform findings at HU-185.
The remaining entries address the mechanics of academic evaluation itself: unauthorized recording of faculty lectures (HU-065), open-book and unproctored prerequisite test-out exams (HU-086), a single report of a faculty member editing a student's submitted work (HU-089), the university's use of Turnitin without documented student notice or consent (HU-162), and a demonstrated security bypass in the HESI secure examination browser (HU-185). Taken together, the entries describe a pattern in which documented integrity concerns, whether student misconduct or institutional and vendor process gaps, are frequently acknowledged but not consistently enforced or corrected.
Issues
HU-026: Lead: the reporting student reported Student G, Student AT, and Student T for distributing exam and EAQ answers and copyrighted textbook content
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Lead / index for a split cluster (disciplinary process, governance eligibility, investigation adequacy) | Date added | 2026-04-30 (Updated 2026-05-05) (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Senior Director Academic Operations / ADA Coordinator | ||
Finding. Lead entry for an EthicsPoint report filed by the reporting student on September 18, 2025 against Student G, Student AT, and Student T, documenting unauthorized distribution of exam and EAQ answers through a Notion workspace, distribution of copyrighted textbook content (Yoder-Wise, Elsevier), Discord and GroupMe groups operating as answer banks, and unauthorized recording of faculty lectures. The downstream institutional problems are tracked separately: HU-026a (the report produced no disciplinary sanction), HU-026b (the accused student was confirmed eligible for student council despite the documented report), and HU-026c (the case closed in seven days and the organization could not access the Notion evidence, so the primary repository may not have been reviewed). See each sub-issue for full evidence and standards.
Evidence. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.
Notes. Split into lettered sub-issues 2026-06-06; the original combined entry is preserved across HU-026a through HU-026c. Existing references to HU-026 resolve here. Parts: HU-026a, HU-026b, HU-026c. Cross-References: HU-065 (unauthorized recording), HU-066 (retaliation against the reporter), HU-067 (investigation adequacy).
HU-026a: No disciplinary sanction was imposed after documented distribution of exam and EAQ answers and copyrighted textbook content
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Disciplinary Process Concern | Date added | 2026-04-30 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Senior Director Academic Operations | ||
Finding. The reporting student documented unauthorized distribution of exam and EAQ answers through a Notion workspace and the posting of copyrighted textbook content. The institution required the content to be taken down but imposed no disciplinary sanction on the accused, despite an academic integrity policy that provides for progressive discipline.
Evidence. EthicsPoint report filed September 18, 2025 by the reporting student ([email redacted]); fourteen files uploaded, including seven PDFs of question-and-answer content and four PDFs of copyrighted textbook content (Yoder-Wise Chapter 3, Ethical and Legal Issues, Nursing Licensure, Bioethical Issues). The reporter states the content was removed but that no sanction followed. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.
Reported statement.
The university made her take them down but there was no disciplinary action taken. The fact that someone could post the answers to 10 exams and not get in trouble is very concerning.
Standards. Herzing Student Code of Conduct (cheating, unauthorized collaboration, misappropriation of copyrighted or proprietary material); Herzing Academic Integrity Policy (progressive discipline: reprimand, suspension, dismissal); 17 U.S.C. §§ 106, 501 (reproducing copyrighted textbook content without permission); ACEN Standard 4 (academic integrity policies must be enforced). Lead: HU-026.
Impact. When a documented integrity violation produces no sanction, the disciplinary framework is not meaningfully enforced, and the institution is exposed to copyright liability from the textbook publisher.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-026 (lead). Split 2026-06-06.
HU-026b: The accused student was confirmed eligible for student council with no disciplinary sanctions on record
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Governance Eligibility Concern | Date added | 2026-04-30 (Updated 2026-05-05) (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Student Communications Coordinator / Academic Operations | ||
Finding. After the integrity report, the accused student ran for student council and was confirmed eligible by an advisor because no disciplinary sanctions were on record. Brooke Weishaar-Price (Student Communications Coordinator) confirmed the student remained eligible, and Dr. Laban was copied on the response.
Evidence. Reporter's account that the accused is now running for student council and was eligible with no disciplinary sanctions per an advisor. Student email to Emilie Thompson and Danielle Laban; Brooke Weishaar-Price confirmed eligibility; Dr. Laban CC'd on the response. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.
Reported statement.
I know this because that student is now running for student council and according to one of the advisors, she was eligible and did not have any disciplinary sanctions.
Standards. Herzing Academic Integrity Policy and Student Code of Conduct (eligibility for student leadership presumes the absence of unaddressed integrity violations). The accused's continued eligibility reflects the absence of any sanction recorded under HU-026a. Lead: HU-026.
Impact. Permitting a student with a documented, unaddressed integrity report to retain student-leadership eligibility undermines the disciplinary framework and the credibility of student governance.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-026 (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Directly downstream of HU-026a (no sanction recorded).
HU-026c: The EthicsPoint case closed in seven days with a generic resolution; the organization could not access the Notion evidence
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Investigation Adequacy Concern | Date added | 2026-04-30 (split 2026-06-06) |
| Owner | Senior Director Academic Operations | ||
Finding. The EthicsPoint report was filed September 18, 2025 and closed September 25, 2025 (seven days) with a generic resolution. The organization noted it was unable to access the Notion URL that held the primary evidence and asked for screenshots, indicating the central evidence repository may not have been fully reviewed before closure.
Evidence. EthicsPoint closure dated September 25, 2025; the organization separately noted it could not access the Notion URL and requested screenshots. Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.
Reported statement.
We were able to meet with the other party involved and address the concerns shared here.
Standards. ACEN Standard 4 (integrity processes must be applied); 34 C.F.R. 602.16 (institutional complaint handling, relevant to accreditation review). A seven-day closure that did not access the primary evidence raises an investigation-adequacy concern. Lead: HU-026. See HU-067 (investigation adequacy).
Impact. If the central evidence was not reviewed before closing, the resolution rests on an incomplete record, which weakens any reliance on the outcome.
Notes. Sub-issue of HU-026 (lead). Split 2026-06-06. Cross-reference HU-067.
HU-027: Pervasive ChatGPT use in nursing discussion posts reported with forensic evidence
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Program-Level Concern / AI Policy Enforcement Gap | Date added | 2026-04-30 (Updated 2026-05-05) |
| Owner | Senior Director Academic Operations / Program Chair | ||
Finding. The reporting student filed an EthicsPoint report on December 3, 2025 documenting AI use in student discussion posts with specific forensic indicators: ChatGPT tracking parameters in citation URLs (ref=chatgpt, utm_source=chatgpt) and hallucinated or dead-link citations across multiple courses over several months. Thirteen screenshots were uploaded as evidence. The university acknowledged the evidence but closed the investigation in five days with no individual enforcement actions, stating AI use is intensifying and that not every case gets caught.
Evidence. EthicsPoint Report (Dec 3, 2025), filed by the reporting student. Filed against: Multiple. Location: Online, W140 N8917 Lilly Road, Menomonee Falls, WI 53051. Alleged violations: Academic Misconduct (ChatGPT to complete discussion posts) and Dishonesty (falsification). Thirteen screenshots uploaded (Nov 27, 2025). Organization response (Dec 8, 2025) called the submissions questionable citations submitted in various courses over the past several months, and stated that AI use is intensifying and the university has taken steps to help students learn how to use it ethically and responsibly. Supplemented by ADA/Title IX Coordinator Emilie Thompson to student (2025-12-02) and student reply (2025-12-03). Source Group: Prelicensure Student Handbook 2026 (SICCED09255468); Defense Bundles 2026-04-29 / 2026-04-30.
Reported statement.
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. I uploaded 10+ examples of the ChatGPT referral links in the discussion posts as well as the hallucinated url links.
Standards. Herzing AI Policy (Handbook p.12); student code of conduct; ACEN Standard 4.6 (academic integrity policies must be enforced consistently). The university's response explicitly acknowledges that AI cheating is ongoing and that enforcement is incomplete, constituting institutional knowledge of an unresolved systemic integrity failure. 34 CFR §602.16(a)(1)(ix): accrediting agencies evaluate whether an institution has adequate policies and procedures for student academic integrity.
Impact. If AI-generated content in discussion posts is widespread and unaddressed, it compromises the integrity of student learning assessments that form part of program outcome measurement. Students who complete assignments independently are disadvantaged relative to AI users. For a nursing program, AI-generated posts mean students are not engaging with clinical concepts at the depth required for patient safety competency. Accreditation risk.
Notes. Investigation closed December 8, 2025 (5 days after filing). No individual enforcement actions documented against any specific students despite thirteen screenshots of specific forensic evidence. The university's response confirms systemic non-enforcement while simultaneously acknowledging the problem. Cross-reference: HU-068 (investigation adequacy); HU-037 and HU-051 (broader academic integrity patterns).
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Systemic Exam Security Failure | Date added | 2026-05-04 |
| Owner | Senior Director Academic Operations / Program Chair | ||
Finding. Students systematically shared HESI exam questions, topics, and answers in real time in GroupMe chat immediately after sitting for exams; the NAXLEX platform allegedly contains verbatim HESI exam questions and was actively recommended.
Evidence. MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (September 30, 2025 through April 2026). Students systematically shared exam topic lists and specific question content immediately after testing. Source Group: MSN-DE DEC 2026 COHORT GroupMe (Sept 2025 to May 2026).
Reported statement. Student AK reported that a specific exam contained questions sourced from Naxlex. Student S reported that Naxlex practice questions had appeared word for word on a prior semester's mental health exam.
Standards. HESI/Evolve copyright protections (Elsevier); Herzing Student Code of Conduct; ACEN Standard 4; 17 U.S.C. §§106, 501 (copyright). Sharing HESI exam content likely violates HESI/Elsevier's intellectual property rights and the university's exam security agreement with Elsevier.
Impact. If exam content is systematically shared, HESI exam scores cannot be taken as valid measures of student nursing competency. Students who do not participate in exam-sharing are disadvantaged. Institutional HESI licensing and accreditation standing may be at risk.
Notes. Exam sharing was conducted openly across a GroupMe channel with 50+ members. This issue intersects with HU-026, HU-027, and HU-051. See HU-051 for cross-cohort scope.
HU-051: HESI exam question sharing occurs systemically across multiple Herzing cohorts and programs
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Systemic Exam Security Failure, Cross-Cohort | Date added | 2026-05-04 |
| Owner | Senior Director Academic Operations / Program Chair / Elsevier | ||
Finding. HESI exam question sharing occurs systemically across multiple Herzing cohorts and programs (MSN-DE, BSN, ASN): students share questions and answers in real time via GroupMe; third-party platforms (NAXLEX, YBG, Studocu) contain verbatim or near-verbatim HESI exam questions; this pattern is documented across at least four separate program GroupMes spanning 2024-2026.
Evidence. Health Assessment NSG121 GroupMe (March to April 2025) and Herzing MSNDE 2026 GroupMe (January to April 2025). Source Group: Multiple GroupMe Archives: Herzing Nursing 2027; Herzing MSNDE 2026 (Jan to Jun 2025); Health Assessment NSG121 (Jan to Apr 2025); Herzing ProctorU Students; Herzing MSN-PNP Summer 2025.
Reported statement. Student AO reported that Quizlet questions used for review matched the material tested on the health assessment exam. Student AK reported that a specific exam contained questions from Naxlex. Student X reported hearing that some questions on Studocu were on the exam. Student AP shared specific question details immediately after testing.
Standards. HESI/Evolve copyright protections (Elsevier); Herzing Student Code of Conduct; ACEN Standard 4; 17 U.S.C. §§106, 501 (copyright). The breadth of this pattern indicates a systemic institutional failure rather than isolated student misconduct. The institution has an affirmative obligation under its Elsevier licensing agreement to protect HESI exam content.
Impact. If HESI exam content is systematically shared across cohorts, exam scores cannot be treated as valid measures of student nursing competency at Herzing University. Graduates who benefited from pre-knowledge of exam content may enter clinical practice without the assessed competency the HESI was designed to certify. This creates a direct patient safety risk.
Notes. This issue extends and expands HU-037 (MSN-DE cohort specific) and HU-026 (HESI answer posting). The cross-cohort scope is significant: the same behavior appears in BSN (NSG121), ASN (MSN-DE Dec 2026), and direct-entry MSN cohorts.
HU-065: Student (Student G) recorded faculty lectures without permission after being explicitly told not to
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Unauthorized Recording / Intellectual Property Violation | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Dean of Prelicensure Nursing / Legal Affairs | ||
Finding. Student G recorded faculty lectures without permission on at least one documented occasion (Dr. Terri Hayden, September 15, 2025) after being explicitly told that recording was not permitted. When asked if recording was allowed, Student G stated absolutely not but recorded anyway. Recordings were shared within cohort communication groups.
Evidence. EthicsPoint Report (Sept 18, 2025), filed by the reporting student. Reporter follow-up (Sept 22, 2025) states that faculty asked students not to record lectures themselves and that the individual mentioned recorded without permission or knowledge, even though a professor explicitly told her not to; the lectures took place on Zoom. Source Group: EthicsPoint Reports: Sept 18, 2025 (Report #1); Dec 3, 2025 (Report #2).
Reported statement.
Despite faculty expressly prohibiting recordings, lectures were recorded and shared, violating intellectual property rights of faculty and potentially state/federal law. The individual mentioned has recorded without their permission or knowledge, even though one of the professors explicitly told her not to.
Standards. Herzing Student Code of Conduct: requires respect for faculty instructions, intellectual property, and University resources. P.R.I.C.E. Values (Handbook p.14): Integrity, being honest, ethical, and accountable in all actions. Wisconsin Statute §968.31 (electronic surveillance): Wisconsin is a one-party consent state for recordings, however the faculty member's explicit prohibition and university policy create a contractual and institutional violation. 17 U.S.C. §§106, 301 (copyright): faculty lectures are intellectual property; unauthorized recording and distribution constitutes potential copyright infringement. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): if lecture recordings capture other students' comments or participation, unauthorized distribution may also implicate student privacy protections.
Impact. Faculty whose lectures are recorded and distributed without consent lose control of their intellectual property. Students who are recorded without knowledge during synchronous sessions have their educational records and participation exposed. The institution's ability to conduct candid, interactive educational sessions is undermined.
Notes. The EthicsPoint investigation (closed Sept 25, 2025) stated that concerns related to recording lectures and information sharing had been investigated and addressed accordingly, with no specific corrective action documented. The university's response confirmed that official recordings are provided to students, making unauthorized student recordings both unnecessary and explicitly prohibited. This issue involves the same student (Student G) and the same EthicsPoint report as HU-026. Cross-reference: HU-067 (investigation adequacy).
HU-078: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group functions as documented forum for systematic third-party exam-content sharing
| Severity | Medium | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Public Documentation of Exam-Content Sharing Across Cohorts | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Senior Director Academic Operations / Program Chair / Compliance | ||
Finding. A comprehensive review of the public Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group export (1,350 posts and 14,112 comments spanning December 2022 through May 2026) confirms that the group functions as a documented forum for systematic recommendations of third-party platforms containing HESI exam content: Quizlet (specific recommendations of users Handle 9, Handle 8, and others), Studocu (for blueprints and HESI practice tests), NAXLEX (multiple confirmations of verbatim HESI questions), YourBestGrade (referenced for milestone preparation), Bootcamp cheat sheets (uploaded as group files), and Mark Klimek's PDF notes. NCLEX cheat sheets covering Diabetes, Eating Disorders, Growth and Development, Burns, and Analgesics are uploaded as files in the group. Even graduating students recommend these resources as essential, indicating institutional non-enforcement and de-facto cohort-wide reliance.
Evidence. Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group export (PostsExporter for Facebook, 1,350 posts including content, 14,112 comments, group ID 689851319336385). Source Group: Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook Group Export (Dec 2022 to May 2026), Topical/Keyword Review (Volume 6).
Reported statement. Student AM said she used Quizlet sets and Studocu materials for HESI preparation and found the Studocu practice tests helpful. Student AF (Jun 25, 2024) shared Quizlet links and said the sets from Handle 8 and Handle 9 were good. Student H (Jun 30, 2024) said she used YourBestGrade for milestone preparation, that being able to use drug books during the test was the biggest help since there were a lot of pharm questions, and that she also did a lot of practice tests on NurseLabs.com. Student BZ said the Studocu blueprints were spot on. Student N (Aug 29, 2024) advised going to Quizlet because the questions were almost the exact same as the exam. Student CA said the Bootcamp cheat sheets were the best resource for summarizing HESI and NCLEX topics and that she would upload them to the group's files. Student U (Sep 29, 2024) named Quizlet and Studocu. Student AC noted she had been messaged by fake profiles claiming to sell exam answers and that others had commented that exams appeared on Quizlet.
Standards. HESI/Evolve copyright protections (Elsevier); 17 U.S.C. §§106, 501 (copyright); Herzing Student Code of Conduct (cheating, unauthorized collaboration); ACEN Standard 4.6 (academic integrity policies must be enforced consistently). The comprehensive scope of this Facebook archive, 1,350 posts spanning 3.5 years and 14,112 comments, establishes that the practice of recommending third-party HESI-content platforms is not isolated, hidden, or covert: it occurs openly in a public forum where Herzing administration could reasonably be expected to monitor or be aware. The institution's failure to enforce academic integrity standards consistently (HU-026, HU-067, HU-068) is reinforced by this scope of public documentation.
Impact. If the institution were to bring disciplinary action against any individual student for using these resources, the action would be unfair given the cohort-wide normalization of this practice across multiple years. The institution's apparent acquiescence to this practice, coupled with HU-074's escalation of HESI weighting to 82 percent of course grade, means that grades are determined by exams whose content is publicly circulating, undermining the validity of any HESI-based academic determination. This compounds HU-026, HU-027, HU-037, HU-051, HU-067, and HU-068 into a comprehensive program-level academic integrity finding. Graduates who pass the HESI based on memorized question banks rather than nursing competency may enter clinical practice without the assessed skills, a direct patient safety concern.
Notes. This issue extends HU-026 (HESI answer posting on Notion), HU-037 (in-cohort exam sharing), HU-051 (cross-cohort exam sharing). This entry was generated from a different evidence base (the Facebook group archive) than HU-037 and HU-051 (GroupMe archives), and the systematic pattern across both communication channels strengthens the program-level finding. The exam-sharing pattern documented here is not a student-misconduct issue where individual students can be disciplined, but an institutional non-enforcement issue where the institution has either declined or been unable to address a documented program-wide practice. Verification recommended: institutional review of the HESI exam content security agreement with Elsevier; review of academic integrity enforcement actions taken or not taken; comparison of Herzing graduate HESI scores to cohort NCLEX pass rates to assess whether HESI-based grading reliably predicts nursing competency.
HU-086: Open-book, unproctored prerequisite test-outs create foundational academic integrity concern
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Prerequisite Assessment Integrity | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Academic Affairs / Enrollment / Registrar | ||
Finding. Herzing offers test-out exams for prerequisite courses (A&P I & II, Chemistry, Microbiology, Statistics) at one hundred dollars per exam. Students confirmed these exams are open book, unproctored, and can be completed from home. One student documented passing all four prerequisites without studying, scoring 92, 98, 94, and 96 respectively, noting she used knowledge retained from a recent TEAS exam. Another student took a twelve-dollar Udemy microbiology course before her test-out and passed with a 93. The formal Herzing test-out email documented in the Facebook group does not specify open book; it only states the exam is password protected and warns of technical issues, yet students confirm it is open book in practice, a discrepancy between institutional policy as stated and as practiced.
Evidence. Formal Herzing Test-Out Email (documented approximately lines 14391 to 14415): does not say open book but warns about technical disconnection, and contains no proctoring requirement. 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. Student CF reported passing four prerequisite test-outs without studying, using retained knowledge from a recent TEAS exam, and stated that each test-out allowed only one try and was 45 minutes for 50 questions. Student J said the exams were open book and not proctored. Student BK told other students the exams were literally open book and to use whatever resources they found helpful. Student K said the exam was 50 multiple-choice questions on very fundamental content, and that she took a twelve-dollar Udemy microbiology course before her test-out and passed with a 93. Student D said the exam was unproctored but timed, and that an 85 percent score was required to pass.
Standards. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain academic standards and credential integrity. ACEN Standard 3 (Curriculum): prerequisite requirements exist to ensure students have foundational knowledge for advanced nursing coursework; allowing test-outs that can be passed without studying undermines this gatekeeping function. Academic integrity principles: assessments used for credit must maintain reasonable security measures. A one-hundred-dollar open-book, unproctored exam for graduate nursing prerequisites does not provide meaningful academic gatekeeping. 34 CFR §600.2 (credit hour): credits awarded through test-out must reflect genuine competency demonstration.
Impact. Students entering the MSN-DE nursing program without genuine prerequisite mastery, because test-outs can be passed without studying, are less prepared for high-stakes nursing coursework and clinical settings. Nurses who lacked foundational A&P, Chemistry, and Microbiology preparation may practice with gaps in foundational knowledge. The revenue dimension is also notable: one hundred dollars per test multiplied by approximately four prerequisites and the number of students opting for test-outs represents a significant revenue stream for what amounts to an open-book quiz.
Notes. The discrepancy between the formal policy email (no open book mention) and actual practice (universally described as open book) suggests either the policy is intentionally vague or students are not being informed of restrictions. Either way, the outcome is functionally equivalent to an open-book assessment. Cross-reference: HU-078 (HESI exam content sharing), HU-037 (in-cohort exam sharing), HU-051 (cross-cohort exam sharing), the test-out issue being the upstream entry-point version of the broader academic integrity pattern.
HU-089: Faculty edited student discussion board post without consent
| Severity | Medium | Status | POSSIBLE |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Faculty Editing Student Academic Work | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Faculty / Academic Affairs / Program Chair | ||
Finding. According to the tracker, Student J posted a question, on May 6, 2024, asking whether it was permissible for a faculty member to edit a student's discussion post, and stated she had never had that experience before. According to the tracker, the responding comment associated this with Dr. Holland, who teaches A&P II, a prerequisite course. Whether faculty have authority to edit student-submitted academic work without consent is reported as a concern raising questions about academic record integrity and the authenticity of graded submissions.
Evidence. [post link redacted], May 6, 2024. Student CQ response (May 7, 2024) asked what was edited and whether Student J had Dr. Holland; Student J confirmed she did. 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. Student J asked whether it was normal for a teacher to edit a student's discussion post, said she had never had that experience before, and confirmed the faculty member involved was Dr. Holland.
Standards. FERPA (20 U.S.C. §1232g): educational records, including student academic submissions, belong to the student; unauthorized modification may implicate FERPA. Academic integrity principles: graded student work must represent the student's own submission; faculty editing submitted work for grade raises authenticity concerns. If the discussion post is a graded assignment, editing it post-submission affects the graded record without documented institutional authority.
Impact. If faculty are routinely editing student academic submissions without documentation or consent, graded records may not accurately reflect student performance. Students have a right to know what they submitted and what was graded. This is reported as a POSSIBLE issue pending verification of whether the post was graded, whether edits were documented, and institutional policy on faculty editing of student submissions.
Notes. Single documented instance; requires institutional verification. Student J's expressed shock suggests this was not standard practice at other institutions she had attended. Dr. Holland teaches A&P II, a prerequisite course, so this may affect prerequisite coursework records.
HU-106: External actors actively targeting Herzing students with paid exam-answer sales
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | External Exam-Answer Sales Targeting Program Students | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Academic Integrity Office / Dean of Nursing / IT Security | ||
Finding. Student AC documented two distinct forms of external exam-answer solicitation targeting Herzing MSN-DE students on October 19, 2024: direct messaging from fake profiles offering to sell exam answers, and open offers in student forums of exam answers for two hundred dollars. This documents that external commercial actors have identified Herzing's MSN-DE student community as a target market for paid academic dishonesty services, indicating the program's exam content and student community are sufficiently known to outside actors to make targeted solicitation viable. No institutional response to this documented solicitation is recorded in the Facebook archive.
Evidence. Posts appeared in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group on October 19, 2024 and received no documented institutional response or warning to students. 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. Student AC said fake profiles had messaged her claiming to sell exam answers, and that she had seen someone offering to sell exam answers for two hundred dollars.
Standards. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain academic integrity and protect the security of assessment instruments. ACEN Standard 4: assessments must be secure and validly measure student competency. The existence of a commercial market for Herzing exam answers at two hundred dollars per exam indicates that exam content has leaked sufficiently to enable paid resale, a direct exam security failure. The absence of any documented institutional response to the reported solicitation (no warning email to students, no investigation, no security review of exam content) compounds the original breach. HESI exam security: the Herzing-Elsevier contract requires protection of HESI content; external resale of HESI exam answers may constitute a contract breach and an Elsevier IP violation.
Impact. Students who purchase exam answers gain an unfair advantage over students who do not, undermining the validity of the program's academic assessments. If HESI exam answers are commercially available, the HESI's function as a meaningful measure of clinical competency is compromised, which in turn undermines the validity of Herzing's NCLEX pass rate data. The two-hundred-dollar price point suggests a functioning market, not an isolated incident. The combination of this finding with HU-078 (systematic third-party HESI content sharing in the Facebook group), HU-026 (HESI answers posted to Notion), HU-037 (in-cohort exam sharing), and HU-051 (cross-cohort exam sharing) establishes a comprehensive academic integrity failure across multiple channels.
Notes. This is distinct from HU-078 (student-to-student sharing within the cohort community): HU-106 documents external commercial actors targeting the program's students. Together they form a complete picture: HESI content escapes the program, enters student-sharing networks, and eventually reaches commercial resale markets. Cross-reference: HU-078 (systematic third-party sharing), HU-026 (Notion HESI posting), HU-037 (in-cohort sharing), HU-051 (cross-cohort sharing), HU-027 (AI cheating). Verification recommended: institutional records of any academic integrity investigation triggered by the reported solicitations.
HU-107: Academic ghostwriting service advertised directly in Herzing MSN-DE Facebook group
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Academic Ghostwriting Service Solicitation in Student Community | Date added | 2026-05-05 |
| Owner | Academic Integrity Office / Dean of Nursing | ||
Finding. Lauren Wangu posted an advertisement on January 27, 2025, in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group for homeworkhubwriters.com, describing it as offering professional nursing and medical writing services. This constitutes direct solicitation of academic ghostwriting services to the program's student community, in a forum where students actively discuss assignments and seek academic help. Academic ghostwriting services exist to enable students to submit purchased work as their own, constituting academic fraud. The advertisement appeared during the Spring 2025 semester when students in the program were managing heavy assignment loads (documented at 40 to 100 assignments per week in HU-096) and expressed frustration with writing-intensive coursework. No documented institutional response to this advertisement appears in the Facebook archive. The advertisement is distinct from legitimate tutoring services (Knack, student-to-student tutoring) also advertised in the group; it specifically offers writing services for nursing coursework.
Evidence. Advertisement posted by Lauren Wangu in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, January 27, 2025, in the same student community where students regularly share course materials, seek assignment help, and discuss academic strategies. 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.
homeworkhubwriters.com, professional nursing and medical writing services, posted by Lauren Wangu in the Herzing Direct Entry MSN Facebook group, Jan 27, 2025.
Standards. 34 CFR §668.14 (administrative capability): institutions must maintain academic integrity and respond to documented academic dishonesty threats in their student communities. ACEN Standard 4: assessments must reflect genuine student competency. Academic ghostwriting violates the fundamental principle that submitted work represents the student's own effort. The presence of ghostwriting advertising in the program's primary student community, without documented institutional response, indicates either institutional unawareness of the student community or institutional failure to monitor and respond to academic integrity threats within that community. If nursing students submit purchased written assignments, their documented competency is fraudulent, a direct patient safety concern.
Impact. Students who purchase ghostwritten nursing assignments and pass the program without genuine competency in written professional communication and clinical reasoning represent a patient safety risk. The advertisement specifically targets nursing and medical writing, the exact genre of assignments used in the MSN-DE program. The heavy assignment load documented at HU-096 (40 to 100 assignments per week) and the 80-20 self-teaching expectation documented at HU-077 create conditions where overwhelmed students are more likely to seek and use ghostwriting services. The advertisement's presence in the Facebook group, without removal or institutional warning, may have normalized the option for students who saw it.
Notes. This finding, combined with HU-106 (paid exam answer sales), HU-078 (systematic HESI content sharing), HU-026 (Notion HESI posting), HU-037 and HU-051 (in-cohort and cross-cohort exam sharing), and HU-027 (AI cheating), establishes a comprehensive academic integrity ecosystem failure: exam answers are commercially available, ghostwriting is advertised, AI is used for assignments, and HESI content is shared across cohorts, with documented institutional non-response across all channels. Cross-reference: all academic integrity issues above. Verification recommended: whether homeworkhubwriters.com can be confirmed as an active ghostwriting service; institutional records of any response to the advertisement.
HU-115: EthicsPoint report filed May 7, 2026 reporting Student G for AI-assisted discussion post submission
| Severity | High | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | EthicsPoint Report, Student AI Academic Dishonesty with Forensic Evidence | Date added | 2026-05-07 |
| Owner | Academic Integrity Office / Dean of Nursing / NU725 Faculty | ||
Finding. On May 7, 2026, the reporting student filed an EthicsPoint report reporting Student G for using ChatGPT to draft a discussion post in NU725-7D (Nursing Informatics, Canvas Course 54101, 2262A18). The specific post is Unit 1: Discussion, Legal and Ethical Issues in Technology (May 6, 2026, 9:06am). Forensic evidence of ChatGPT use: all three reference URLs in the post contain the tracking parameter utm_source=chatgpt.com, a parameter automatically appended by ChatGPT's browsing feature when a user follows links from within a ChatGPT session. A student manually composing a citation would never produce this parameter. This is the identical forensic marker documented in HU-027. Student G is identified in her introduction post (May 4, 12:02pm) as a student council representative for the graduate online campus. She also submitted a Unit 1 Introduction post on May 4, 2026 citing the American Nurses Association (2022) Nursing Informatics scope and standards.
Evidence. Canvas Discussion Post: Student G, NU725-7D Unit 1: Discussion, Legal and Ethical Issues in Technology, May 6, 2026, 9:06am. Forensic URL evidence: all three reference URLs (AACN Essentials Domain 8, HHS HIPAA Privacy Rule, HHS HIPAA Security Rule) contain utm_source=chatgpt.com. EthicsPoint Report Key [redacted], filed by the reporting student, May 7, 2026. Course: NU725-7D, Canvas Course ID 54101, 2262A18. Source Group: EthicsPoint NAVEX Report Key [redacted] (May 7, 2026); Canvas Discussion Post Screenshots, NU725-7D Unit 1 (May 4-6, 2026).
Reported statement.
https://www.aacnnursing.org/essentials/tool-kit/domains-concepts/informatics-and-healthcare-technologies?utm_source=chatgpt.com; https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/privacy/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com; https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/security/laws-regulations/index.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com
Standards. Herzing University Academic Integrity Policy: submission of AI-generated work as one's own constitutes academic dishonesty. ACEN Standard 4: assessments must reflect genuine student competency; AI-generated discussion posts do not reflect the student's own clinical reasoning or professional communication skills. The utm_source=chatgpt.com URL parameter is a forensic artifact produced specifically by ChatGPT's web browsing feature; it is not present when a student independently locates and cites a source. This is the same evidentiary standard applied in HU-027, where thirteen screenshots of similar forensic markers were submitted and the university acknowledged that AI use is intensifying. The institutional response to HU-027 was general education with no individual enforcement; this report provides a specific, named, evidence-supported instance that tests whether the institution will enforce its academic integrity policy against an identified individual with documented forensic evidence.
Impact. Student G is identified as a student council representative for the graduate online campus, a student leadership role that carries expectations of modeling academic integrity. If the institution declines to act on a report with this level of forensic specificity, it confirms the pattern documented at HU-067 and HU-027 (institutional non-enforcement of AI policy). The 5-6 business day review window expires approximately May 14-15, 2026. If no substantive response is received, that non-response is itself documentable evidence of institutional non-enforcement.
Notes. EthicsPoint Report Key [redacted] must be retained. Follow-up at www.ethicspoint.com or the EthicsPoint hotline after May 14-15, 2026 using the report key and password. The irony of the post content is notable: Student G used ChatGPT to write a discussion post about technology ethics, HIPAA compliance, and the importance of nurses acting with integrity around information systems. The post itself discusses consequences of privacy violations and pause before you click or share culture, while the metadata of the post's own citations reveals the post was AI-generated. Cross-reference: HU-027 (program-level AI use pattern with same forensic markers), HU-067 (prior EthicsPoint report closed inadequately), HU-068 (AI EthicsPoint institutional response, general education only).
HU-162: Use of Turnitin to screen student work and retention of student submissions in Turnitin's third-party repository
| Severity | Medium | Status | POSSIBLE. Turnitin use and the presence of other students' papers in the comparison database are CONFIRMED by the screenshot; the absence of prior consent or knowledge is the reporter's concern and requires verification against the course syllabus, course pages, academic catalog, the enrollment agreement, any Turnitin click-through agreement, and Herzing's Turnitin repository setting. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Use of a Third-Party Plagiarism-Detection Service (Turnitin) and Retention of Student Work in Its Repository, Without Disclosed Prior Consent or Notice (transparency, FERPA, and intellectual-property concern) | Date added | 2026-06-06 |
| Owner | Office of the Registrar and FERPA compliance; MSN-DE Program Chair (Dr. Raywattie Prashad); course faculty; institutional academic-integrity and data-privacy administration | ||
Finding. A screenshot of Turnitin Feedback Studio shows a NU725-7I Gap Analysis Presentation (author displayed: Student A) processed through Turnitin with a 19 percent overall similarity score. The matched sources are other institutions' student papers stored in Turnitin's repository: Capella University (13 percent), Faulkner University (6 percent), and Dublin City University (2 percent). This confirms that Turnitin is used to screen student work in this program and that the service retains and reuses student submissions as comparison sources. According to the tracker, the reporter states that Turnitin is used without prior consent or knowledge of students and that student content is uploaded to Turnitin's database without consent. The Prelicensure Student Handbook reviewed does not mention Turnitin, plagiarism-detection software, similarity reports, or the submission or retention of student work in a third-party repository, and its consent provisions address patient or client information rather than student data or intellectual property (Herzing University, 2026). Whether students received notice or consented through the syllabus, course pages, the academic catalog, the enrollment agreement, or a Turnitin click-through agreement is not established by the available evidence and requires verification. This entry documents a transparency, notice, and consent concern and does not assert a settled legal violation.
Evidence. Turnitin Feedback Studio screenshot: NU725-7I Gap Analysis Presentation, 19 percent overall similarity; match sources listed under Student papers as Capella University 13 percent, Faulkner University 6 percent, and Dublin City University 2 percent, captured June 6, 2026. The Prelicensure Student Handbook reviewed contains no reference to Turnitin, plagiarism detection, similarity scoring, or third-party repository submission of student work; the only consent provisions concern patient or client information (Herzing University, 2026). Source Group: Screenshot of Turnitin Feedback Studio showing a NU725-7I Gap Analysis Presentation (author displayed: Student A), 19 percent overall similarity, captured June 6, 2026; Prelicensure Program Student Handbook (SICCED09255468); provided by the reporting student. The concern is program-level (Herzing's use of Turnitin for student submissions), not specific to one student.
Reported statement.
Turnitin report header: 19% Overall Similarity; match sources listed as Student papers from Capella University (13%), Faulkner University (6%), and Dublin City University (2%). The reporter states Turnitin is used without prior consent or knowledge of students, and student content is uploaded to their database without consent.
Standards. FERPA (20 U.S.C. 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99): institutions must annually notify students of their rights and of the practices affecting their education records, and disclosures of education records to third parties are regulated; whether submitting and retaining student work in a commercial repository is disclosed and consistent with FERPA notice is the question raised. Institutional transparency and academic integrity: HLC Criterion 2.A (integrity, ethical and responsible conduct) and HLC Criterion 2.E (clear, fairly applied academic-integrity policies) support disclosing the tools used to evaluate student work. Intellectual property and consent context: the leading federal case on Turnitin, A.V. ex rel. Vanderhye v. iParadigms, LLC, 562 F.3d 630 (4th Cir. 2009), held that Turnitin's archiving of student papers was a fair use and that a click-through agreement was enforceable consent; the copyright and fair-use question is therefore largely settled in Turnitin's favor and consent can be effected through a click-through, so the live concern here is whether Herzing provided clear notice and obtained or relied on such consent. This entry frames the matter as a disclosure and consent concern and a FERPA-notice question, not as a settled violation. Cross-reference HU-159 (FERPA and records integrity), HU-155 and HU-156 (NSG 521 exam and proctoring), HU-092 (third-party platform integration).
Impact. If student work is submitted to and retained in a third-party commercial repository without clear notice or disclosed consent, students may be unaware that their intellectual work is stored and reused to evaluate others, and the institution's FERPA notice and transparency obligations may be implicated. Conversely, if the syllabus, catalog, enrollment agreement, or a Turnitin click-through disclosed and obtained consent, the concern is largely addressed; that disclosure is not present in the handbook reviewed and has not been verified elsewhere. Because the concern is program-level and the documenting student is enrolled in NU725 this term (see HU-159), it may affect his own submissions as well, pending verification of the disclosure and repository settings.
Notes. Verification recommended: whether the NU725 syllabus, course pages, academic catalog, enrollment agreement, or a Turnitin click-through agreement disclose Turnitin use and the submission or retention of student work in Turnitin's repository, and whether students consented; Herzing's Turnitin repository configuration, specifically whether submissions are stored in the standard paper repository, an institutional repository, or set to no repository; whether and how students may opt out or request removal. Scope note: this is program-level evidence; the screenshot shows another student's NU725-7I assignment (author displayed: Student A), and the documenting student's enrollment in NU725 is context. Recommended follow-up: request the institution's Turnitin and academic-integrity policy and its FERPA annual notice; request the repository setting; preserve the screenshot as an exhibit. The matter is framed as transparency, notice, and consent, with the copyright and fair-use question already resolved in Turnitin's favor by A.V. v. iParadigms (4th Cir. 2009). Cross-references: HU-092, HU-155, HU-156, HU-159. APA 7 note: the screenshot and the reporter statement are treated as personal communications, cited in text only and not in a reference list.
HU-185: The HESI secure examination browser permits in-exam access to outside reference content and a complete bypass out of the locked exam
| Severity | Critical | Status | CONFIRMED; demonstrated live by the reporting student during a screen share and directly observed and acknowledged by the Elsevier representative on the call |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | Examination Lockdown Browser Security Failure Permitting Outside Resource Access and Desktop Bypass | Date added | 2026-08-04 |
| Owner | Elsevier / HESI product and technology teams; ProctorU (Meazure Learning); Herzing University academic leadership | ||
Finding. During joint troubleshooting on August 4, 2026, the reporting student demonstrated, on screen share, that within the HESI secure examination browser a student can click a word in an exam item and receive a macOS dictionary and thesaurus panel displaying the definition of that term. The same panel offers a Siri Knowledge option which renders full Wikipedia article content. The reporting student further demonstrated that selecting the Wikipedia option launches the article in Google Chrome outside the locked browser, at which point he had complete access to his computer, and that he could then return to the still-open exam via the application dock or the application switcher and repeat the cycle. He demonstrated this behavior on the legacy secure browser and stated it also occurred on the newer secure browser he was asked to load during the same call. The Elsevier representative observed the dictionary panel on the shared screen, stated that the behavior should not occur, said he was raising it within his internal group chat and updating an open ticket with his technology team, and thanked the reporting student for surfacing it. The reporting student noted on the call that a live ProctorU proctor watching the screen would likely observe such activity, but that the lockdown browser is itself the control intended to prevent access to outside resources, and that a student testing without an attentive live proctor would face no barrier at all.
Evidence. Recorded call and transcript, August 4, 2026. The reporting student demonstrated the dictionary and thesaurus panel appearing within the secure browser, demonstrated Siri Knowledge rendering Wikipedia content, and demonstrated launching a Wikipedia article into Google Chrome and returning to the open exam. The Elsevier representative acknowledged the behavior on the call, stated it should not be occurring, and stated he was escalating internally and updating a technology ticket. The reporting student also recorded a short screen capture of the behavior during the call and emailed it to the Elsevier representative after an in-call screen share attempt failed due to an external sharing restriction. Source Group: Recorded video call, August 4, 2026, between the reporting student, a representative of Elsevier/HESI who stated he also works with the Meazure Learning side, and Dr. Danielle Laban, Associate Vice President of Student Affairs, who joined near the end of the call; transcript provided by the reporting student. Speaker attribution in the automated transcript is inconsistent and the same speaker is labeled variously; the substance is clear but individual lines should be attributed by reference to the underlying recording rather than to transcript speaker labels.
Reported statement.
I was able to completely bypass and go out of the lockdown browser into Google Chrome while I was showing him, and access the dictionary, and I had complete control over my computer during this time. [Elsevier representative:] that stuff should not be showing.
Standards. HLC Criterion 2.A (institutional integrity, including the integrity of academic assessment) and 34 C.F.R. Section 668.14 (administrative capability, including adequate oversight of third party vendors performing core institutional functions). Compare against Herzing's published Student Code of Conduct and Academic Integrity policy, which impose obligations on students not to access unauthorized resources during examinations; a proctoring control that does not in fact prevent such access places students at risk of integrity findings arising from software behavior rather than student conduct. Programmatic nursing accreditation standards regarding the integrity and validity of student evaluation are also potentially implicated; the applicable standard number should be confirmed against the current standards of the accreditor for this specific program before being cited in any filing.
Impact. This is an examination validity and academic integrity risk that runs to the institution and the student body rather than solely to the reporting student. If the lockdown control does not prevent access to reference material or to the desktop, the security assurance underlying every proctored HESI examination administered through this browser is weakened. For the reporting student specifically, the same defect creates the exposure documented at HU-186, because his accommodation gesture triggers the dictionary panel. The reporting student raised on the call the question of whether other students on comparable devices could reproduce the bypass; that has not been tested and is not established.
Notes. Recommend requesting written confirmation from Herzing and Elsevier of the disposition of the technology ticket opened on August 4, 2026, whether the behavior has been reproduced by the vendor, and whether any examinations already administered are considered affected. The reporting student's screen capture of the behavior should be preserved as an exhibit. Whether other students can reproduce the bypass has not been tested and should not be asserted as established. Cross-References: HU-186 (text to speech gesture triggering the dictionary panel, arising from the same defect), HU-175 (the underlying accessibility failure and the August 4, 2026 root cause finding), HU-188 (compatibility check calculator defect surfaced on the same call).