Herzing Issues: Records, Privacy, and Data Security
| 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: Records, Privacy, and Data Security collects the issues from the Herzing University Issue Tracker that concern records, privacy, and data security. 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[edit | edit source]
This topic currently holds a single tracker entry, HU-152, logged on June 4, 2026 and rated Low severity with a status of CONFIRMED. The entry concerns the AVP's decision to deny a student's Otter.ai transcription assistant from an accommodations meeting, and the absence of any alternative institutional record offered to the student in its place. The owner listed is Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP). The entry is part of a broader June 4, 2026 meeting group that spans HU-145 through HU-152, with this record logged as the transparency and recordkeeping concern arising from that same meeting.
Issues[edit | edit source]
HU-152: Student's request to transcribe the June 4, 2026 accommodations meeting (Otter.ai) was denied[edit | edit source]
| Severity | Low | Status | CONFIRMED |
|---|---|---|---|
| Issue type | AI Meeting Transcription Denied / No Institutional Record Offered to Student | Date added | 2026-06-04 |
| Owner | Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP) | ||
Finding. At the start of the June 4, 2026 meeting, Dr. Danielle Laban stated that the student's Otter.ai transcription assistant was on the Forbidden list for meetings and that she had denied the student's Otter from joining, explaining that the institution stopped allowing employees to use it because it joins meetings on its own. As a result, the student's automated transcription of an accommodations meeting was not permitted. While an institution may reasonably restrict third-party bots from joining its meetings, the concern documented here is that the student was left without an agreed-upon record of a meeting concerning his disability accommodations, and no alternative institutional transcript or recording was offered to him during the meeting. This is a minor transparency and recordkeeping concern.
Evidence. Dr. Danielle Laban: I know we have a set amount of time... did you want us to transcribe the meeting, because otters are on the Forbidden list... for meetings, so I denied your otter; that is exactly why we stopped allowing employees to use it, because it just joins whenever it wants. The reporting student: apparently it showed up in a Zoom meeting today and I do not even know [how]. Source group: recorded meeting (audio plus transcript), June 4, 2026, with the reporting student, Dr. Danielle Laban (AVP, identified as Speaker 3), and the ADA/Title IX coordinator referred to as Emily/Emilie (Speaker 4), provided by the reporting student. Source: June 4, 2026 recorded meeting (audio and transcript).
Reported statement.
otters are on the Forbidden list... for meetings, so I denied your otter.
Standards. General recordkeeping and transparency expectations for disability-related meetings: while restricting third-party transcription bots is within an institution's discretion, where a student seeks a record of an accommodations discussion it is good practice to offer an agreed alternative (institutional minutes or a recording). No statutory violation is asserted; this is logged as a low-severity transparency item. Cross-reference HU-145, HU-146, HU-147 (the substantive accommodation concerns from the same meeting).
Impact. The reporting student did not obtain his intended automated transcript of a meeting addressing his accommodations, and no alternative institutional record was offered during the meeting, leaving the student reliant on his own notes for an important accommodations discussion. (The student separately retained a recording and transcript, which is the source for this entry.)
Notes. Logged as Low severity. The restriction on Otter.ai bots may be a reasonable institutional policy; the trackable element is the absence of an offered alternative record for an accommodations meeting. Cross-reference: HU-145, HU-146, HU-147. Part of the June 4, 2026 meeting group (HU-145 through HU-152).