HLC Criterion Committees—Integrity, Ethical and Responsible Conduct

Members of the University’s current Higher Learning Commission (HLC) accreditation criterion committees are continuing work prepping for the peer review site visit in February 2027.  

For Steven Stump, Director of the Center for Applied Research, and Peter Whiting, Scholarly Communication Librarian and Professor of Library Science—co-chairs of the Integrity, Ethical and Responsible Conduct Criterion Committee—their charge isn’t just about proving what USI does in these areas, but also helping to improve it. 

Ethics, Integrity and Acting Responsibly 

As with the Criterion 1 Committee, Stump and Whiting are leading their members in gathering important details that fit their charge—showcasing how the University is ethical in its practices both inside and outside classroom settings, its integrity in serving students and the community, and how the campus acts responsibly in its mission.  

“People may often perceive the HLC reaccreditation process as primarily an academic exercise. Criterion 2, in my opinion, really drives home how this process encompasses and involves our entire campus,” explains Stump.  

While the three charges of this committee may appear to only apply to the work that happens in classrooms, it also encompasses the work outside ofcourses. Beyond academics, the group has pulled information that incorporates the Board of Trustees, Human Resources, Title IX, Institutional Review Board, Internal Audit and many other offices across campus that aren’t directly involved in academics. This information includes text from USI’s website, University Handbooks, training information for employees, compliance and transparency guidelines, and information provided by campus governance groups. 

“We’re showing that we not only lead our students through exceptional learning and intentional innovations, but we’re also sharing this information and updating it too,” says Whiting. 

The 15-member committee is diverse in its composition—faculty, support staff and administrative staff are all represented. “That’s reflective of USI, the shared governance,” adds Whiting. “People have different skills and expertise.”  

That diversity also helps emphasize how the accreditation process isn’t just asking for participation and data from faculty, but from all employees across campus. It’s a good way to show and understand how each department and office is an important part of the “machine” of USI, affecting the “output” of the University.  

Taking a look at the University through the lenses of the criterion should involve everyone on campus to make sure USI is functioning as healthy as possible, Stump adds. That means looking inside and outside of the classroom. “We are definitely working to provide evidence that those types of areas are being covered in our data,” he says.  

 What is the evidence?  

So how does the committee show USI’s ethics, integrity and responsibility? By including policies, guidelines and rules in the assurance argument. When it comes to this criterion, HLC is looking to see what are the guiding principles that USI follows. This data includes information from areas such as the Employee Handbook and meeting minutes, even information from the Quality Improvement Initiative the University undertook a few years ago. These pieces show how decisions are made at USI and how the University works to further improve in needed areas. 

“We’re hoping to identify various ways in which we’re being proactive about making the environment as conducive to ethical conduct as possible, in any way shape or form,” explains Stump.  

The co-chairs say in the end, a goal for their committee is to show how USI is providing an environment where students and employees feel safe, welcome and heard, and giving everybody the opportunity to collaborate in an environment that’s productive and positive.  

Combined with that, says Whiting, is showing how accessible information about ethics, integrity and responsibility is to the campus community. It’s one thing to “talk the talk” and another to “walk the walk,” Whiting explains. Both he and Stump feel the evidence gathering their committee is doing provides ample examples of how USI “walks the walk.” 

Next steps 

As the Spring Semester nears conclusion, the HLC committees are working on the Assurance Argument drafts for review. Once committee members sign off, Provost Dr. Shelly Blunt and Associate Provost Dr. Jason Hardgrave will begin reviewing, updating and editing the drafts with committee co-chairs and Dr. Darrin Sorrells, HLC Accreditation Liaison Officer and Teaching Associate Professor of Kinesiology and Sport.  

It’s a large task, but one that provides a great opportunity to reflect on the work of USI across many areas, says Stump and Whiting.  

“This process, especially working with Peter, is very gratifying in the work that we get to do, information and involving colleagues throughout the organization. And getting their input on all the things we’re doing really well and all the opportunities we have to make our current processes, policies and procedures even better,” says Stump. 

“It’s good to work with Steven on this committee; I think we’ve made a lot of progress on this. We’re looking at ourselves, doing a self-evaluation, and saying, ‘We’re not perfect, but we have a lot to offer,’” adds Whiting. “This is good self-reflection for USI, looking at areas that we might need improvement and also just sharing our USI story.”  

If you have more questions about what HLC is or the process of accreditation, please reach out to Dr. Darrin Sorrells, HLC Accreditation Liaison Officer, by email at ddsorrells@usi.edu or by extension 5174. 

Check out the first two stories in this series: 
USI’s HLC Accreditation work in full swing 

HLC Criterion Committees — The Mission 

The next story in this USI Today series will address the third criterion committee, which addresses teaching and learning for student success.