Validity of non-U.S. degrees in Oregon

We have had several inquiries about how the Kennedy-Western settlement language will affect the way ODA handles foreign degrees. The answer is, not much, because they are covered by different sections of the law.

In Oregon, foreign degrees must have the "foreign equivalent" of U.S. accreditation, which means that the question of accredited vs. unaccredited does not really come up. What does come up, of course, is whether the foreign supplier in fact has that equivalent.

We have found that the single best way to make this determination is to require the foreign supplier to show that its degrees can be used inside its country of approval on the same basis as any other degrees issued there. This factor separates 99 percent of the skunks from the sheep.

From our point of view, if degrees issued by an entity that is licensed as a business in, to pick a nation at random, Denmark, cannot be used as credentials inside Denmark, then the degrees are inherently invalid as emanating from an entity without true legal authority to issue degrees. To put it another way, an entity such as, to pick a name at random, Knightsbridge, issues degrees under the same legal authority as would a fish processor or lumber mill.

Oregon still bans the use of such degrees as inherently false.

 

Except that a fish processor would provide processed fish, as a lumber mill would provide lumber. Knightsbridge University provides neither, nor does it provide actual degrees. Just pieces of paper pretending to be degrees.

Just a random thought.

 

A big issue in my mind is whether a person who has the burden to demonstrate that a foreign degree does not have the equivalent of accreditation. Apparently, in Oregon, the first burden is for the Office of Degree Authorization (ODA) to notice that a person is using a foreign degree, because the law only kicks in if the degree holder is warned, and continues to claim the degree after the warning.

Suppose ODA notices a person is using a foreign degree. Does the ODA immediately send a warning, or make some preliminary inquiry into the quality of the degree, and only issue a warning after finding some indication that the degree does not have the equivalent of accreditation? Suppose a warning is issued, and someone pays ODA to check out the degree, and ODA determines the degree is equivalent to accredited. Does every other person who holds a degree from that institution have to pay for a new investigation, or does the one investigation cover all degrees from that institution?

 

Personally, I am glad I don't live in Oregon and have to deal with Mr. Contreras.

 

Seems like a pretty sound test. I find it amusing people think it proper for a person to form an organization and just start issuing degrees without any knowledge or background. Then they are surprised that these instant "self-validated" degrees are not accepted. Pretty silly all in all.

 

Oregon is a beautiful state that is generally well governed. (I have some doubts about the latest land use initiative.)

Neither ODA nor Alan Contreras need trouble you so long as you pursue accredited degrees.

 

Re: Re: Validity of non-U.S. degrees in Oregon

Great point Rich.

 

I agree Nosborne on both accounts. I can understand frustration with land use laws and public policy that controls use of your own land, but do we really want to go 30-40 years back when you could open a wrecking yard, garbage dump or just about any kind of business in any neghborhood? It really make no sense at all when you consider the beautiful state that Oregon is.

 

Only academic frauds need concern themselves or fear the ODA.

 

This is very good aproach.
I think ODA serves the citizens of Oregon very well.

Properly credentialized emploees better then frauds.

 

This is an ad hominem that adds nothing to the discussion. Shame on you.

 

So far, I have not had occasion to pursue a foreign degree, which would almost always be unaccredited, but I consider that a posibility in the future. I have many friends who have done so because they come from foreign countries. I would like to believe that my friends and I could apply for jobs in Oregon without having to go to any special trouble and expense, provided the degrees are from reputable schools. We can do so, so long as we do not get a warning from ODA, but the ODA web site does not make it clear whether a warning might be issued if we came to the ODA's attention.

 

Ashton,

Foreign degrees are not "accredited" but the LEGITIMATE ones come from schools operating under Ministry of Education (or whatever) authority.

If I ever move to Oregon (a remote but real possibility), I doubt seriously that ODA or Alan Contreras will raise any questions at all about my (eventual) LL.M. from the University of London. Why? Because it will be a REAL degree from a Royal Chartered English University, not a fake!

Mill defenders want people to declare that their worthless pieces of paper are legitimate degrees but won't succeed. You propose the opposite, that ODA wants to declare fraudulent degrees that come from recognized schools. That won't happen, either.

 

In response to the inquiry about whether each person who wants a foreign degree evaluated must pay to get it done once we have done the first one: no, once ODA has determined that a foreign institution meets the legal test, it is approved, period, unless we later get evidence of fraud or the like. All of its degrees are valid thereafter in Oregon. However, this has never happened. Only one foreign school, a medical school on St. Lucia, has started the process.

In our experience, there is less "gray area" with foreign suppliers than with unaccredited U.S. schools. The exception is in the licensed professions, where the swarm of offshore medical and veterinary schools operates within a unique bubble. That bubble is starting to attract some regulatory attention owing to some problems with medical graduates. There are, of course, odd situations such as Swiss cantonal approvals, which we do not accept because the degrees are usually not usable elsewhere in Switzerland. They are the rough equivalent of state approvals in the U.S.

Oregon does not evaluate foreign schools, it evaluates foreign oversight systems and the way that oversight is applied to schools. That is why a diploma mill such as Knightsbridge can't meet Oregon standards - its own government, in Denmark, denies that it has the legal authority to issue locally-recognized degrees. Under Oregon law, it is therefore not a degree-granting institution at all.

Domestic degrees are handled differently because the law for domestic schools is different. Evaluations are, in most cases, program by program for unaccredited suppliers. Thus it is possible for a domestic school to have some programs approved but not others. For example, we have approved the Psychology PhD from SCUPS, so any future holders of that degree don't have to apply for review. However, holders of other unreviewed SCUPS degrees would have to have a review.

 

Many countries implement Accreditation system for QA in education.

In UK we have many professional institutions that provide accreditation - for example IEE via UK EC etc.

Russian Federation Universities have to be ACCREDITED in order to issue its graduates State Format Degrees.

Some schools are Licensed by Russian Ministry of Education what is comparable to State approval but they can't award State Format degrees.

Accreditation - what began is USA is spreading to the rest of the world.

 

No one here is a bigger supporter of Oregon's intent (even if not its precise methodology, in all cases); and of Alan Contreras as the thoroughly right and best person to implement it. There's no question that I'm a fan... a huge fan, actually.

However -- and though I don't want this to become the protracted civil rights discussion that it has been between me and Mr. Contraras in previous threads -- I continue to believe that the degree-holder need not pay one thin dime for the investigation and review; and that the first time Oregon goes after someone, criminally, who has an unaccredited degree that would nevertheless be found perfectly acceptable by Oregon if it would simply bother to review it (like the aforementioned SCUPS Psychology PhD, for example), it will learn the hard way that its procedure of putting upon the degree holder the onus of proving that his/her degree does not violate Oregon's law actually puts upon said defendant a burden which s/he does not actually have; and which potentially violates said defendant's Constitutional right against self-incrimination.

When a defendant pleads "not guilty," s/he's not saying that s/he's innocent; rather, s/he's saying, to the state, "Make your case." The defendant's not required to prove a damned thing... including and especially his/her innocence. Rather, the state is required to prove s/he isn't innocent... and if it can't, then to stop pursuing him/her. Defendants are never required to prove essentially the opposite. Either the state has the goods on the defendant, or it doesn't. The defendant never needs to prove that it doesn't. That's why some defense attorneys, when the state's case is extraordinarily weak, don't even bother putting on a defense (rare, I know... but it happens).

Oregon's law effectively puts upon the defendant equivalently the opposite of the Constitutionally-mandated state's burdon of having to prove guilt; instead putting upon the defendant the onus of having to prove his/her innocence merely because the state accuses otherwise -- which is expressly prohibited by our Constitutioin -- and, by so doing, causing said defendant to risk innocently making statements against self-interest which could, nevertheless, be used against him/her.

It turns on its head the part of our Constitution created to protect the innocent by forcing the state to either make its case or quit, without the defendant -- at least theoretically -- having to do a damned thing! And that's unconscionable, in my opinion. It's the only part of the Oregon law which I find reprehensible.

Were I an Oregon resident and/or a person wishing to do business there who happened to hold a perfectly legitimate degree that just doesn't happen to be accredited by a USDoE/CHEA agency (and, no, I don't mean one issued by the likes of Kennedy-Western), but which degree would easily withstand Oregon's scrutiny if it ever bothered to just up and review the darned thing, then I'd operate in that state with impunity, and without contacting Mr. Contreras's office for permission or paying it a thin dime to research my degree even if it contacted (and challenged) me!

"Make your case," I'd say, defiantly, adding, "See you in court!"

In the process of preparing for that impending court date, since the burden would be on the state to prove my guilt (rather than on me to prove my innocence), Oregon would, sooner or later, be forced to perform, for its own information (and at its own expense), the very investigation and review it had originally tried to get me to fund back when it first contacted me and said to/challenged me, illegally, in effect, "Hey, buddy... prove that that unaccredited degree is nevertheless acceptable under Oregon law or go to jail;" whereupon, once having realized (as a result of said investigation/review) that the degree is okay after all, it would be forced to drop the charges...

...or, if it didn't, then I would force it to explain to the court why it nolle prosed the cases of other defendants whose unaccredited degrees were just like mine and were found to be acceptable by the state, but who didn't dare make the state determine that for itself and at its own expense, like I had dared to do. Unequal application of the law is also unconstitutional.

A rude awakening, I have always said, awaits Oregon, someday, regarding this very narrow aspect of it. Time will tell, of course; but that, as many here know, has been my chief complaint about Oregon's procedures for some time around here.

All that said, I would never want Oregon to abandon its system altogether. What it seeks, in chief, to do -- i.e., to rid the state of bogus, diploma-mill degrees and the knuckleheads who issue them -- is the absolutely right thing to do. And Oregon, in my opinion, is well on the right track with its current approach. I'd simply want the state to modify that approach so that it would withstand constitutional scrutiny and doesn't trample (even if only unintentionally) on the civil rights of its citizens and/or those wishing to do business there who have perfectly acceptable domestic degrees that are, nevertheless, not accredited by a USDoE/CHEA-approved agency, as Oregon law requires.

 

I don't think that argument is very persuasive.

The Oregon law, at least as originally written, made use of non-accredited degrees illegal in the state of Oregon. It also created a mechanism by which users of illegal non-accredited degrees could request that their degree programs be recognized by the ODA.

If somebody declined to use the approval mechanism, then the state's burden of proof would only consist in demonstrating: A. that they were using the degree in the state (that's where any real constitutional problem probably lies), and B. that the originating degree program was in fact non-accredited (that part is elementary).

If using non-accredited degrees is illegal in the state of Oregon, then a prosecutor would have to prove that a defendant was using a non-accredited degree in the state of Oregon. The burden of proof is still on the state.

If we pass over the issue of degree use, I fail to see why the state would need to do any investigations at all, beyond determining accreditation status. That's all that the state has to prove. They don't have any burden to prove that a non-accredited program is crappy as well.

While I agree that there likely are constitutional problems with the Oregon law as written, I think that they probably involve the concept of "using" a degree. That arguably vague and over-broad prohibition threatens to run the Oregon law into the constitutional free-speech-protection rocks. But I still think that the current law could succeed if the prohibited "use" was defined more carefully in the rules.

 

As always, Gregg raises some good issues and I think some of them are worth addressing.

First, although Oregon law does allow ODA to request a local prosecutor to bring misdemeanor charges against a degree user, this has never been done because we only do that if a degree is being used in a situation in which it potentially damages public health or safety or results in a financial loss, e.g. to a client. ODA's main deterrent is that the Commission for which I work can impose a civil (non-criminal) penalty, i.e. a fine. We have a sliding scale of priorities to use in enforcement, as do most enforcement agencies.

Bill Dayson's point in response raises an issue more fundamental than how the ODA law is enforced, and that is the question of whether the government can rely entirely on accreditation as a proxy for baseline acceptability, without any obligation of a free-standing review. So far, the answer from the courts has almost always been "yes," but like many of you I do not think this will continue indefinitely.

I think the Oregon law is safe from a successful broad-spectrum challenge as long as the concept of relying on accreditation is safe from such a challenge. Even Kennedy-Western conceded that the state had a right to absolutely forbid the use of unaccredited degrees in public employment or in licensed professions. There is not even an ODA review and signoff possible in such cases.

When we start seeing a pattern of appellate courts denying the government the right to rely absolutely on accreditation as the firewall, laws such as Oregon's will hardly matter, since the entire educational universe will have shifted.

Until that day comes, all we have to prove is that the supplier is not accredited. It is then up to the user to choose whether to opt for a review.

 

Dear Alan;

What occur if a Licensed Attorney or a Judge of California, with a Pacific Coast University Juris Doctor, goes to Oregon?

ODA go to request a local prosecutor to bring misdemeanor charges against that Judge or Licensed Lawyer?

Additional item, why ODA pronounce that Pacific Coast University is a degree mill?

 

Licensure to practice law in Oregon is under the jurisdiction of the bax examiners and Supreme Court. I don't know how they handle California unaccredited degree-holders.