+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 18
  1. #1
    Lerner is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Brighton Beach, NY and London, UK
    Posts
    2,273

    Forgery of an academic degree a Class D felony- Kentucky

    Diploma mills' business in Kentucky would be cut down under a bill passed by the House Wednesday. Feb 17 , 2005
    House Bill 13, sponsored by Rep. Jon Draud, R-Edgewood, would make forgery of an academic degree a Class D felony, punishable by 1-5 years in prison. It targets companies that award degrees and furnish transcripts and other documents without requiring coursework...

    Only about 40 percent of employers do background checks on academic degrees, Westrom [Rep. Susan Westrom, D-Lexington] said. The bill would hold the companies accountable and would not target those who purchase the diplomas.

    The bill now advances to the Senate for that chamber's consideration.

  2. #2
    Lerner is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Brighton Beach, NY and London, UK
    Posts
    2,273

    Mississippi legislators will soon take another shot

    PASCAGOULA - Mississippi legislators will soon take another shot at curbing online universities that aren't accredited by Mississippi but are operating in this state.
    There's one in Pascagoula, American World University, which operates through an answering service on Market Street and on the Internet. Many of its customers are overseas, and the school offers degrees in a shorter time than one might get a degree from an accredited state university.

    A Senate bill was filed earlier this month that, if passed, would give the state's Commission on College Accreditation a tool with which to confront this type of university.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    148

    Cool "Look Out, Here Comes The Degree Police"

    I am from Kentucky and would personally like to see degrees from diploma mills banned. But since accreditation is a voluntary process, I would hope the Commonwealth doesn't resort to establishing the "Degree Police" and establish an ODA under a Hillbilly like Alan Contreras.

  4. #4
    George Brown is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    1,299

    Re: Forgery of an academic degree a Class D felony- Kentucky

    Originally posted by Lerner
    Diploma mills' business in Kentucky would be cut down under a bill passed by the House Wednesday. Feb 17 , 2005
    House Bill 13, sponsored by Rep. Jon Draud, R-Edgewood, would make forgery of an academic degree a Class D felony, punishable by 1-5 years in prison. It targets companies that award degrees and furnish transcripts and other documents without requiring coursework...

    Only about 40 percent of employers do background checks on academic degrees, Westrom [Rep. Susan Westrom, D-Lexington] said. The bill would hold the companies accountable and would not target those who purchase the diplomas.

    The bill now advances to the Senate for that chamber's consideration.
    Thanks Lerner - do you have a URL, reference or anything like that? I would like to get the source of this.

    Cheers,

    George
    Dr George Brown

    http://www.higheredconsulting.com.au

  5. #5
    Lerner is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Brighton Beach, NY and London, UK
    Posts
    2,273
    House passes bill to combat academic forgery, LRC eNews, Louisville, Kentucky WHAS11.com, February 17, 2005.

    http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/pubinfo/listserv.htm

    David Root, AACRAO Transcript, February 16, 2005.


    The LRC Public Information Office has developed a new User Group to distribute news material to Kentucky's media outlets in a timely manner. Newsworthy material from the General Assembly will be distributed or made available electronically. Items will include digitally transmitted photographs, audio news cuts and news releases, email news releases, and other digitally transmittable formats. If you would like to join the LRC eNews user group, click the subscribe button below,



    or email to enews@lrc.state.ky.us and type subscribe in the subject window. You will be free to remove your name at any time. This list will not be distributed and will only be used for distribution of news material.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples of digital material include:
    LEGISLATIVE AUDIO CUTS

    LEGISLATIVE NEWS PHOTOS






    Learner
    Last edited by Lerner; 02-23-2005 at 04:39 PM.

  6. #6
    Bill Huffman is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Posts
    4,394

    Angry Re: "Look Out, Here Comes The Degree Police"

    Originally posted by PhD_Cyberspace
    Hillbilly like Alan Contreras
    This is nothing but a personal attack against a person that I have great respect for and is a member of this community.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    148
    Dear Bill,

    I find people attack here all the time. It was just my opinion. All I stated is that I hope my fellow representatives don't adopt the same policies in Kentucky that exist in Oregon. People should be allowed to chose where they get their degree. If they use a degree from a diploma mill, shame on them.

  8. Advertisement

  9. #8
    George Brown is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    1,299
    Originally posted by Lerner
    House passes bill to combat academic forgery, LRC eNews, Louisville, Kentucky WHAS11.com, February 17, 2005.

    http://www.lrc.state.ky.us/pubinfo/listserv.htm

    David Root, AACRAO Transcript, February 16, 2005.


    The LRC Public Information Office has developed a new User Group to distribute news material to Kentucky's media outlets in a timely manner. Newsworthy material from the General Assembly will be distributed or made available electronically. Items will include digitally transmitted photographs, audio news cuts and news releases, email news releases, and other digitally transmittable formats. If you would like to join the LRC eNews user group, click the subscribe button below,



    or email to enews@lrc.state.ky.us and type subscribe in the subject window. You will be free to remove your name at any time. This list will not be distributed and will only be used for distribution of news material.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Examples of digital material include:
    LEGISLATIVE AUDIO CUTS

    LEGISLATIVE NEWS PHOTOS






    Learner

    Thanks so much.

    Cheers,

    George
    Dr George Brown

    http://www.higheredconsulting.com.au

  10. #9
    Ray Lund is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    13

    A good idea... execution?

    I would be happy to see all mill produced degrees subject to legal penalty for useage, if this is the only way to get rid of them. But forming Government Agencies with authority to criminalize, and being directly involved in determining what makes an academic degree vaiid or invalid.. well........ I don't think so.

    Ultimately, government agencies with extreme power and authority become dependent on successful cases developed and brought to resolution - often by prosecution. This, to justify their continued existance. It is not the normal for a combination agency with both a regulatory and an investigative arm to be law enforcers and a constructive academic body at the same time. Ultimately I suspect, as with any enforcement agency, abuses will occur. At some point down the road, different rhymes and reasons for targeting various schools and institutions will become both an agenda item for thier legislative pursuits and thier prosecutorial sections. (This is how you grow your department in government and build staff)

    Accreditation agencies have a counterbalance weighing in on them in the form of opportunity generation should they become too onerous (even over costs). Schools of substance simply depart from the club and new ones pop up and decline to play the game in the first place. We see some of this today. But who would oversee the degree police? how would the victims of abuse from THIS government agency be compensated? Who would represent them, and who would pay the bill?

    And thusly, I don't want to see any degree police agencies formed like ODA or other similar variety elsewhere.

    Give the power to confront bozo institutions to academic peoples or academic bodies and accreditating agencies - then just pull their business licenses on review. I'm sure legislation can be constructed to achieve this.

    Our society will never be able to stop individuals or even organizations from printing slick looking degree and diploma documents, and individuals attempting to use them. Accordingly I feel the penal enforcement (if any) needs to be on the users, and only regulatory weight needs to be on top of the producers and sellers of them, if policing action has to be involved at all.


    Ray Lund

  11. #10
    DesElms is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern California and/or Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    2,860
    The "hillbilly" remark was over the top... even for me. I have a great deal of respect for Alan Contraras. His writings here and elsewhere speak for themselves. He has never, to my knowledge, done or written or said anything to deserve being called a "hillbilly." That said, I don't, personally, believe the person who made the characterization should have his account disabled or anything like that. But it really wasn't fair. Mr. Contreras deserves a great deal more respect than that... even from those who disagree with him.


    As for the issue at hand...

    I believe that the use (by an individual), of a fake diploma, or his/her claims of a fake degree, for nearly any purpose which has nearly any observable consequence should be a crimninal offense -- but only at the misdemeanor level for the first offense, and at the felony level only for second and successive offenses.

    I believe that those who create fake diplomas and/or fake degree transcripts should also be guilty of a misdemeanor for the first offense, and a felony for second and successive offenses.

    The above two would be criminal matters, handled by the local prosecutor, just like any other crime wherein arrests are made and the arrestee is read his/her rights.

    License/permit revocation -- be it an individual's business or professional license/permit, or a fake degee producer's business license/permit and/or its registration with the state as a college or university -- should be suspended or revoked, as appropriate, going hand-in-hand with the criminal charges. This would be a civil matter, handled by the county attorney or, more likely, state attorney general's office. (The rest of what I write here will presume the latter.)

    I believe that all states should have and office like Oregon's ODA... at least in principle. Said office would initially detect offenses, prepare affidavits, and refer cases to the local prosecutor (and the attorney general's office, where appropriate); and would provide technical expertise and witness testimony.

    It is important to understand that, in my little paradigm, here, the above refers to truly "fake" documents, forgeries or claims of degree ownership that simply aren't true. Purchased documents from entities that could only not be considered diploma or degree mills by someone who has brain damage or something could easily be included in the above, but there would have to be a very well-crafted definition of "diploma mill" and/or "degree mill" in the statute (which wouldn't be as difficult as many here seem to try to make it); or, possibly, the use of lists. In any case, the statute would need to not just provide for, but to call for, with intention and deliberateness, extensive performance of adequate investigatory due diligence at the state's expense of credentials that don't fall neatly into the definitions, or institutions that don't fit neatly onto the lists. This, I have always argued, has been the "Achilles' heel" of Oregon's methodology.

    At any rate, the fundamental mistake that I believe most who ponder these matters tend to make is to believe that a single statute will do it all. There really are two issues:
    1. A document authenticity issue (a quantitative sort of thing); and,
    2. An institution authenticity issue (a qualitative sort of thing).
    A document authenticity sort of statute which comes at it from a truly "zero-tolerance" angle, and has harsh criminal penalties for violators is relatively easy to draft and administer. Such a statute could easily handle flat-out fake credentials from non-existent and/or not-real schools, as well almost more easily handle false claims of credentials from real ones. These are quantitative assessments, somewhat more easily detected, analysed, and then subsequently prosecuted. The defendants in such cases would be both those who claim ownership of the credential and proffer them on resumes and in other similar places, as well as print shops and other businesses that actualy produce such documents. The penalties would always be purely criminal unless the defendant also had some sort of license or permit as well, in which case civil suspension/revocation procedures would also accompany the criminal ones.

    Where it gets, potentially, a little more complicated (and it really is potentially only "a little" more complicated) is when the state tries to attack the diploma/degree mill problem by daring to declare whether or not an institution is "legitmate" and/or worthy of degree granting. This is a qualitative issue and, therefore, one more difficult (but by no means impossible) to codify. I suppose that criminal penalties could attach for those who operate institutions without the state's approval, but it is probably more appropriately a purely civil matter, handled by the state's attorney general's office. Of course, if the state's attorney general's office is going to go for expediency instead of enforcement of both the letter and the spirit of the law as Oregon's attorney general's office did in the Kennedy-Western case, then a statute which assesses institutions and declares them worthy of being able to grant degrees (or not) will have little purpose or utility in fact.

    In any case, properly administered, such a statute would simply require that all post-secondary educational institutions in the state operate only with the permission of the state, which permission is obtained by application and determined pursuant to the state's performance of adequate investigatory due diligence to determine the applicant's compliance with an objective and clearly-stated set of qualitative criteria.

    For institutions outside the state, provisions in the statute (read: adequate funding) would need to be made for the performance of similar adequate due diligence to assess the foreign institution's standards against the very same aforementioned set of criteria.

    In the case of any institution -- whether inside or outside the state -- as described in the two preceding paragraphs, the setting forth of the qualitative criteria against which all in-state applicant institutions and out-of-state investigated institutions would be measured must be clear and unambiguous. This would probably require codifying voluminous amounts of definitions and target benchmarks, but such probably cannot be avoided in a statute that tackles a problem such as this.

    Declaring that any institution that is accredited by a USDoE/CHEA-approved agency is automatically acceptable to the state is reasonable and appropriate. Beyond that, declaring that only institutions which meet the criteria as set forth in the three preceding paragraphs, and then creating a list of the institutions that do, is also reasonable and appropriate.

    Even mandating in law that all persons with credentials from institutions not described in the preceding four paragraphs must apply to the state for permission to use said credentials, as Oregon now does, is reasonable (though I'm still undecided about whether it's also appropriate); but requiring the applicant to pay an investigation fee -- at least as long as the results of the investigation ultimately indicate that the institution would be acceptable to the state and should be added to its list, and maybe even if they don't -- is probably not; and, in any case, considering the fact that criminal sanctions may result, requiring, at his/her expense, the credential-holding individual's involuntary investagatory participation or defense of his/her credentials when s/he doesn't apply to the state for permission to use them, but whose credentials are nevertheless noticed by authorities and are subsequently investigated, as Oregon now does, would be the wrong way to do it.

    In such case, the state could charge the credential holder with the crime of failing to apply, as required by law, and that charge would stand even if the credential itself were later determined to be credible and legitimate, and its granting institution worthy of being added to the state's list of acceptable institutions, but any further presumption of the credential holder's guilt just because s/he didn't apply in the first place would be inappropriate; and any guilt (for proffering a sub-standard credential) beyond the more easy-to-detect crime of simply failing to apply could only be determined by an appropriate investigation of the credential and its granting institution at the state's expense, just as the state would do in the case of any other crime.

    Maybe it's just me, but except for establishing the aforementioned criteria against which all in-state-applying and/or out-of-state-investigated institutions would be assessed, codifying all of the above into a reasonably easy-to-administer statutue would seem to be a minor -- almost a trivial -- challenge. It's just not that difficult and, for the life of me, I just cannot understand why so many people and states get it so wrong.
    Last edited by DesElms; 02-24-2005 at 10:37 AM.
    Gregg L. DesElms
    [size=1][i]A lowly barnacle on the
    hull of the S.S. DegreeInfo[/i][/size]

    [size=1][b][i]Raising digression, tangential thinking and
    circumlocution to an absolute artform.[/b][/i][/size]

    Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
    Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

    [size=1][b]USEFUL LINKS:[/b]
    [b]*[/b] Pop-up currency converter, [url=http://www.xe.com/pca/launch.cgi?FromSelect=EUR&ToSelect=USD
    ][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Articles you should not miss, [url=http://www.degreeinfo.com/articles.html][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Books you should not miss, [url=http://tenspeedpress.com/catalog/tenspeed/item.php3?id=2127][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and [url=http://www.degreemills.com][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Web sites you should not miss, [url=http://www.geocities.com/liu_jonathan/distance.html][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and [url=http://bain4weeks.com][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Get foreign degrees evaluated, [url=http://www.aacrao.org/credential/index.htm][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and/or [url=http://naces.org/members.htm][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Read all about accreditation and degree mills, [url=http://www.chea.org/degreemills/][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Check school/program accreditation, [url=http://chea.org/search/search.asp][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and [url=http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.asp][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Obtain international accreditation information, [url=http://www.inqaahe.org/members_view_all.cfm?mID=3&sID=22][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Making post (and other) times display correctly, [url=http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21247][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] DegreeInfo's Terms of Service (TOS) agreement, [url=http://www.degreeinfo.com/terms_policies.html][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].

    [url=http://www.liberaloasis.com/][color=darkblue][b]LIBERAL OASIS[/b][/color][/url][/size]

  12. #11
    Ray Lund is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    13

    Just the basics

    Well Des, if every law enforcement official was as educated in the finer points of making determinations on academic matters as you are; and desired to spend the amounts of time making nothing but circumspect analyses as you have here; and had no preconceived ideas related to an agenda and had no pressure to prove and justify a continued existance by presenting a continuous stream of cases.......... it would be a different world indeed.

    Unfortunately the government enforcement agencies created to handle academic matters are always going to be pretty much the same as any other law enforcement agencies, with a real variety of people working in them, from fairly well educated to no formal education at all. The results will always be a cafeteria plate of good and bad, with the bad costing the taxpayers a bundle in unneccesary litigation costs and a furthering of certain types of bureaucratic insanities like the ODA / Kennedy -Western fiasco.

    With truly "fake" or "forged" degrees and diplomas, we already have both misdemeaner and felony statutes on the books of every state in the union. These laws are already enforced by any law enforcemnt agency that chooses to investigate instances of violations occuring, and prosecutorial agencies already prosecute them. This leaves the insititutional issue. Shall we create new laws and insert the compliance into the penal codes of states and then form new agencies to investigate and refer cases for prosecution? -or- shall we just create new penal laws and demand more funds (from the taxpayers) for a few more police officers to investigate these matters? OR just create organizations like ODA who operate with the authority to shoot first and then retreat to the State Attorney General's office to apologize and engotiate a truce?

    The bottom line here is, the academic world will never be able to control who works in a government agency, and there will never be any controls over them that eminate from the world of academia or learned people in general. You may very well see an individual or group of inidviduals who have no formal education at all, drawing conclusions about the legitimacy of an educational institution and then deciding on thier analysis that they should be criminalized.

    District Attorney's and thier offices are not generally equipped or chartered to do investigative work - they prosecute cases mostly. (Except in larger organizations and this is limited even in those that do some investigative work) Already overloaded State Attorney Generals are going to be about as interested in this matter as my Monkey's Uncle, and that leaves the standard methodology we have created adn used in our society for many decades. That being the delegation of the ground level matters to investigative personnel who gain employment through the usual governmental processes, not academic ones.

    I wonder what the academic credentials were of (1) all of the governemntal officials at ODA who made the analysis and decisions to go after Kennedy-Western and put them on Oregon's deadbeat list and (2) what the credentials were of the Oregon officials who handled and resolved the issue with Dennedy Western's lawyers.

    Consider the concept and the problem with ODA becomes apparent.

    Ray Lund
    Last edited by Ray Lund; 02-24-2005 at 11:21 AM.

  13. #12
    DesElms is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern California and/or Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    2,860
    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    Well Des, if every law enforcement official was as educated in the finer points of making determinations on academic matters as you are; and desired to spend the amounts of time making nothing but circumspect analyses as you have here; and had no preconceived ideas related to an agenda and had no pressure to prove and justify a continued existance by presenting a continuous stream of cases.......... it would be a different world indeed.
    What a loaded set of "ifs."

    You incorrectly presume that law enforcement officials who are not particularly expert in a given crime could not, nevertheless, investigate and prosecute it effectively. That's just silly. Cops and prosecutors do it all the time. It's not brain surgery... especially if the statutes they were follower were well-written... which they would have to be in order to past constitutional muster. Your assumption that the statutes I had in mind when I wrote my above would be anything less insults me and, in my view, is a diversionary tactic on your part in any case.

    You incorrectly presume that investigators would be wasting time and their work would consist of nothing but circumspect analyses. That's just silly. Again, a well-written statute -- which is the only thing I had in mind -- would be easy for any investigator to read and to then determine if the entity in question had violated. Where's the mystery you seem to want the reader to think would be present?

    Your phrases like "related to an agenda" and "pressure to prove and justify a continued existance" are paranoid-sounding, at best; and betray your anti-ODA/pro-Kennedy-Western bias. That, alone, should tell any reader who's been around here a while pretty much everything they need to know. The "agenda" of the ODA (or any other agencies like it) is to protect consumers and businesses from the way things would be if those who think like you were controlling how things are in the educational universe. The diploma mill and sub-standard institution problem is growing. Nearly every state has how to deal with it on its list of things to do. They want to do something about it because not doing so will cause harm, as a matter of public policy. If you want to characterize that as "an agenda," with the sort of negative connotation that you intend by wording it that way and in the context in which you presented it; and if you then want to characterize those who, like Alan Contreras, are charged with the task of administering the legislation that their states pass as law as merely trying to "justify [their] continued existance [sic]" by do doing, then all I can say is that you have a skewed and misguided notion of how things work in a democratic society that has declared, with intention and deliberateness, that it is a nation of laws and not people. There is nothing I can do about you misapprehensions than to call them to both your, and the reader's, attention... as I have just done.

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    Unfortunately the government enforcement agencies created to handle academic matters are always going to be pretty much the same as any other law enforcement agencies, with a real variety of people working in them, from fairly well educated to no formal education at all. The results will always be a cafeteria plate of good and bad, with the bad costing the taxpayers a bundle in unneccesary litigation costs and a furthering of certain types of bureaucratic insanities like the ODA / Kennedy -Western fiasco.
    You incorrectly assume, again, that it will, in my little paradigm, as described in my earlier post, all be subjective; that there will be no well-crafted regulatory language codified in statute to be their guide.

    Clearly, that's how you see the way Oregon does things; and, in fact, from your writing, here, it is obvious that your real complaint is with Oregon and how you clearly believe it tried to hurt Kennedy-Western "University" with malice and no legitimate purpose other than some sort of hidden and unwholesome agenda. I, for one, don't appreciate your assuming that I profess an office exactly like Oregon's ODA in every state; and then citing the infirmaties of Oregon's approach as proof that mine is unworkable also. Apparently you've not read enough of my writing elsewhere herein. I have debated with Mr. Contreras extensively in these fora about the constitutional defects in Oregon's approach. My paradigm, as described in my previous post, stated that every state should have an office much like Oregon's ODA, but I meant that purely in essence or principle. I then went to great lengths to describe how my plan would be different. Apparently you've chosen to ignore that and to use this opportunity to lob grenades, here, at me when your real target is Oregon's ODA for their having slimed an institution (KW"U") that, though it be objectively sub-standard, you, nevertheless, support.

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    With truly "fake" or "forged" degrees and diplomas, we already have both misdemeaner and felony statutes on the books of every state in the union.
    Not true. Some states have them -- California, for example -- and many others. But not all. Not by a long-shot. And, anyway, my paradigm didn't even make mention of whether or not there should be new laws. You're not a very careful reader, are you? I only said that there should be such laws. If they already exist for a given jurisdiction, fine. For those that don't have them, I'm saying they should.

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    These laws are already enforced by any law enforcemnt agency that chooses to investigate instances of violations occuring, and prosecutorial agencies already prosecute them.
    A weasel argument. Had you stopped at "these laws are already enforced," I'm sure that even you knew how easily that assertion could be dismantled. So you craftily added the weasel qualifiers, "by any law enforcement agency that chooses to..." etc., in the hope that uncareful readers would assume, in their haste, that everything was already under control, thankyouverymuch, and needed no more statutory attention.

    Ask any 100 people what aspirin does, and the vast majority will say "stops pain" or "kills pain" or something to that effect. But, in fact, if you look closely at aspirin-maker's claims in advertising , they say that their products "help stop pain." The word "help" or "helps" is rarely actually noticed or heard by the consumer when reading/hearing/seeing advertising . "Help" or "helps," in this case, becomes the "weasel word." That's Advertising 101.

    Your weasel argument had the very same intention, here, with regard to how well -- or if at all -- existing fake credential laws are being enforced in the states. They are, more often than not, not... and you know it.

    Does that mean we need even more laws? Not necessarily. It would depend on the state and the state of things therein, as even you must know.

    Nice try, though. Too bad you're not better at this.

    Continued in next post...

  14. #13
    DesElms is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern California and/or Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    2,860
    ...continued from previous post.

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    This leaves the insititutional issue. Shall we create new laws and insert the compliance into the penal codes of states and then form new agencies to investigate and refer cases for prosecution? -or- shall we just create new penal laws and demand more funds (from the taxpayers) for a few more police officers to investigate these matters? OR just create organizations like ODA who operate with the authority to shoot first and then retreat to the State Attorney General's office to apologize and engotiate a truce?
    In the first place -- and let's get this straight right now -- the Oregon ODA did not "shoot first and then retreat to the State Attorney General's office to apologize and [n]egotiate a truce." The ODA had properly categorized Kennedy-Western. It was, and remains, a veritable diploma mill. That is incontrovertable. Oregon's Attorney General let its citizens down by improperly handling the case and rolling over unnecessarily. In a perfect world, the citizens of that state would hold its attorney general accountable, but I fear that that would be about as successful as holding John Ashcroft accounting for his felonies while U.S. Attorney General.

    The rest of your paragraph to which I'm now responding would appear to question whether it is the right and/or responsibility of government to determine what is in the public interest, to draft legislation intended to ensure it, and then to subsequently enforce said legislation as a means of protecting the citizenry from harm? And, moreover, you seem to suggest that even if it were the right and responsibility of government to do so (which you clearly believe it is not), then heaven forbid there be any funds allocated to the task.

    My paradigm was clear. Create or use a fake degree or transcript; or claim a degree you don't actually have, and go to jail -- for a year or less (a misdemeanor) for the first offense, and for a year or longer (a felony) for second and successive offenses. So, yes, that would be inserting the notion of compliance (which, clearly, offends you) into the penal codes of the states. What of it? States do that sort of thing all the time.

    And police officers would not necessarily be needed to investigate. Offices like Oregon's ODA, if created properly and invested with the appropriate authority, could perform the due diligence pursuant to statute and the Constitution, and then refer the matters to the appropriate presecutorial agency -- be that the local prosecutor's office (in the case of a criminal complaint), or the local city or county attorney or state's attorney general's office (in the case of a civil complaint). What's so hard about that? Agencies like a state's EPA, just to name one, for example, do it all the time. Why are you trying to make it sound like it would be the end of the world?

    Or are you an anarchist?

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    The bottom line here is, the academic world will never be able to control who works in a government agency, and there will never be any controls over them that eminate from the world of academia or learned people in general.
    Who ever made the "academia should police itself" argument? Certainly not me! This is how Republicans do things: They declare something provably false as if it were fact, and then argue against it and/or in favor of changes that will "fix" it. Take the Social Security "Crisis," for example. There's no crisis. Never was. And if the U.S. government would follow the law, never will be. But boy is Bush43, et al, making the case. Sadly, those who don't bother to dig deep for the real truth of things are often sucked-in by such shenanigans.

    No one suggested that "the academic world," as you put it, should have a damned thing to say about it. The academic world said what it had to say about it when it adopted accreditation as the standard by which educational institutions are judged. That works when people bother to understand what accreditation means. But many don't -- including employers and others who may not realize that they should question and/or challenge an academic credential when it is presented to them; and/or who could be harmed by not doing so. Protecting the citizenry from harm is one of government's functions. Making the stakes higher for those who, by their selfish and/or self-interested acts, put others in harm's way is one of this nation's most potent and time-honored methodologies to curb the problem. If you got your government and civics education at a place like your beloved Kennedy-Western, it comes as no surprise to me that that must be explained to you.

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    You may very well see an individual or group of inidviduals who have no formal education at all, drawing conclusions about the legitimacy of an educational institution and then deciding on thier analysis that they should be criminalized.
    I ask again: You're not a very careful reader, are you? It is not a subjective thing. That would not withstand constitutional scrutiny. The standards must be carefully codified into law so that all of the affected citizenry and its institutions will have adequate notice of the standards to which they must adhere and the rules with which they must comply. The regulators, then, would have not their subjective judgements to guide them, but how what they can observe with their own eyes tends to (or not to) comply with the letter of the law. That's how law works... er... oh, yeah... I forgot... you "learned" about that at Kennedy-Western, so I guess you wouldn't know about such things.

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    District Attorney's and thier offices are not generally equipped or chartered to do investigative work - they prosecute cases mostly.
    On the contrary, most prosecutors offices have one or more investigators -- usually badge-carrying, and often former police officers... some of them, sometime, also lawyers. But we're back to that whole careful reading thing again: I was very clear in what I earlier wrote. In my little paradigm, the ODA-like office within the state would be constituted such that it could do most or all of the investigating and then, simply, prepare and affidavit and refer the case to either the prosecutor's office, or to the attorney general's office, or both, as apppropriate. Again, that's how agencies like the EPA (and others) do things. Why do you not see that as workable? Government's got how to do such things down to a science. It's what government does. I realize, of course, that anarchists like you appear to be believe that government should be shrunk down to a tiny handful of ineffective people who couldn't hurt a flea, but that's never gonna' happen... no matter how much Bush43, et al, try.


    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    Already overloaded State Attorney Generals are going to be about as interested in this matter as my Monkey's Uncle,
    Attorneys General in different states care and worry about different things. They take their cues regarding what they should care most about -- and, therefore, what should be their action items -- from the citizenry that elects them (and/or from the citizenry that elects the governor who appoints them, depending on the state); and from the media and what it reports that citizenry obviously cares about, etc. Diploma/degree mills are oft talked about these days. Plenty of attorney generals offices care about it. Don't worry yourself about that.

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    and that leaves the standard methodology we have created adn used in our society for many decades. That being the delegation of the ground level matters to investigative personnel who gain employment through the usual governmental processes, not academic ones.
    God, I wish I knew what the hell you were talking about, in this context, Mr. Clarity-of-thought. No, strike that. I wish you knew what you were talking about. That would be decidedly better.

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    I wonder what the academic credentials were of (1) all of the governemntal officials at ODA who made the analysis and decisions to go after Kennedy-Western and put them on Oregon's deadbeat list and (2) what the credentials were of the Oregon officials who handled and resolved the issue with Dennedy Western's lawyers.
    As if that mattered. The ODA is a small office. Alan Contreras probably had more to do with it than anyone. As I recall, he need make no apologies to anyone for the educational credentials he possesses -- which I'll bet dollars to donuts out-class yours by a country mile.

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    Consider the concept and the problem with ODA becomes apparent.
    From the perspective of those who support Kennedy-Western and its ilk, I imagine that's true.
    Gregg L. DesElms
    [size=1][i]A lowly barnacle on the
    hull of the S.S. DegreeInfo[/i][/size]

    [size=1][b][i]Raising digression, tangential thinking and
    circumlocution to an absolute artform.[/b][/i][/size]

    Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
    Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

    [size=1][b]USEFUL LINKS:[/b]
    [b]*[/b] Pop-up currency converter, [url=http://www.xe.com/pca/launch.cgi?FromSelect=EUR&ToSelect=USD
    ][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Articles you should not miss, [url=http://www.degreeinfo.com/articles.html][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Books you should not miss, [url=http://tenspeedpress.com/catalog/tenspeed/item.php3?id=2127][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and [url=http://www.degreemills.com][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Web sites you should not miss, [url=http://www.geocities.com/liu_jonathan/distance.html][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and [url=http://bain4weeks.com][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Get foreign degrees evaluated, [url=http://www.aacrao.org/credential/index.htm][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and/or [url=http://naces.org/members.htm][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Read all about accreditation and degree mills, [url=http://www.chea.org/degreemills/][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Check school/program accreditation, [url=http://chea.org/search/search.asp][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and [url=http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.asp][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Obtain international accreditation information, [url=http://www.inqaahe.org/members_view_all.cfm?mID=3&sID=22][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Making post (and other) times display correctly, [url=http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21247][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] DegreeInfo's Terms of Service (TOS) agreement, [url=http://www.degreeinfo.com/terms_policies.html][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].

    [url=http://www.liberaloasis.com/][color=darkblue][b]LIBERAL OASIS[/b][/color][/url][/size]

  15. #14
    Ray Lund is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    13

    No Des

    No Des, it isn't just "some states" that have stautes against forged documents, it's all of them. It matters not whether it is a degree or a dollar bill, it is forgery or introducing false or antedated documents all the same - prosecutable for the same reasons and requiring the same standard of evidence, which has nothing to do with the subject of the forgery. Only politics and evidence reviews within the decision making authorities would say yes or no to actual prosecution. (Caesar doesn't like his currency being forged so this would make it most of the time, forged degrees might or might not depending on the profile of the crime and the damage done, or whether the media made a story out of it. Otherwise it would likely be laughed out of the office.

    In fact Des, I am from law enforcment. I have spent just short of twenty years of my adult life working for agencies like LASD and LAPD as well as smaller departments. I can tell you first hand that as I have reviewed the quarterly disciplenary reports for many officers in trouble, a good number of them were for getting involved the wrong way in civil matters where they thought it was clearly criminal. This, mostly because they either didn't know the finer points of the law, or didn't realize the legal implications of their actions. In addition, I have supervised plenty of personnel in law enforcement who simply did not have enough education to handle complex crimes or issues with embedded issues of academic natures.

    As far as the pressures that eminate from within law enforcement agencies to justifiy their existance and the demand to produce case streams irregardless of whether they are quality or not, again, I have first hand experinece where you apparently do not. I have served at the lowest level and near the highest with the lovely position of having to justify my unit's funds, and I have also watched it occur with individuals and their performance ratings. No collars = poor review, great numbers of collars = great reviews. This may not be the commonality everywhere, but is sure is a mainstay within law enforcement in general. Ultimately it drives the behaviors of many.

    True, law enforcement officers could " perform the due dilligence pursuant to statute.." but suppose they don't? Suppose they can't? Is ther any penalty for not doing it correctly? probably not on the law enforcement side, but the penalty paid by the victims could be very high, as it has been many a time with my previous employers in a variety of circumstances where the "Constitution" was violated because of overzealous behavior or sheer ignorance.

    No Des, my position does not make me an anarchist. It comes from more experience with government and law enforcement agencies than you apparently have. While I can't speak for others, my experience tells me that most law enforcement officials, particularly the Chief Law Enforcement Officials would pass on adding educational institutions to their enforcement responsibilities, even questionable ones, as would investigators from most agencies - simply because it is a crime that doesn't cry for law enforcement action. It isn't victimless, but the damage is well, somewhat obscure to many, if not most people. I bounced this subject (prosecution for using fake degrees and prosecuting operators of degree mills) off on a dozen people yesterday (all formally educated) and most just laughed.

    As to "withstanding Constitutional scruitiny" I ask you just who would make the Constitutional review on behalf of the potential victim, or the people who pay the taxers that support the governmental agency? The State Attorney General? I don't think so. That person is paid to defend state employees and their behaviors. So it must fall on the potential vicitm or the accused to hire lawyers and hope for due process to be served to them.

    The Oregon Attorney General rolled over unnecessarily????? my my Des, it looks like those geniuses at ODA have the corner market on common sense AND legalities over the AG. I guess it must be a character flaw that made him do it? perhaps too many twinkies?

    Somehow I doubt the Oregon State Attorney General would agree with you on this one, or any of his many assistants. Nor do I. They get paid to look out for the legal pitfalls of enforcement actions, ODA does not.

    Now I will be the first to admit I don't know anything about Kennedy-Western other than what I have read on these boards for the last two weeks. There seems to be a rather dominating concensus that it is a degree mill, or at the very least a lower than marginal? insititution. That's OK with me. There are institutions of every conceivable caliber and type operating out of so may corners it is mind boggling. There are two with the same exact name as my undergrad school, one is an UA and the other is a complete fraud to my understanding. Probably always will be, ODA agencies or otherwise.

    As to the vulgarity in your response- Des, it apears that I simply struck a nerve with you and you can't handle it.

    Get a life! Better yet, go to work for a law enforcement agency and get some experience. You will gain perspective, if nothing else.


    Ray Lund

  16. Advertisement

  17. #15
    Lerner is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Brighton Beach, NY and London, UK
    Posts
    2,273
    This is the board at its best.

    I enjoy your highly intelligent debate.
    Hope to improve my English skills as well.
    I really do appreciate the views expressed here and the time takes to post the replies.

    This is educational in many ways.

    Learner

  18. #16
    DesElms is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Northern California and/or Northwest Indiana
    Posts
    2,860

    Oy.

    Ohmygod... I don't believe it. This may be a first. Ray has made a posting aimed at me that is so facially ridiculous, so misses the point, and so twists the debate, generally, that I actually don't really have much to respond to... save for the following:

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    No Des, it isn't just "some states" that have stautes against forged documents, it's all of them. It matters not whether...
    I meant forgery of diplomas or transcripts. Nowhere near "all" of the states have laws which address that. Forgery laws, in general, yes... every state has those, as you correctly, and with a weird and uncalled-for degree of vitriol, point out. But that's not what I thought you meant; and it's certainly not what I meant. Gratefully, that's all cleared-up now.

    Pretty much every other paragraph of your post can be responded to, variously, with "Huh?" or "And that's relevant how, again?" or "Man... can you ever twist a debate in the second place into something barely recognizable as that same debate in the first place."

    That is, until we get to:

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    As to the vulgarity in your response- Des, it apears that I simply struck a nerve with you and you can't handle it.
    Oh, yeah... that's it. You sleuth, you.



    And then, finally:

    Originally posted by Ray Lund
    Get a life! Better yet, go to work for a law enforcement agency and get some experience. You will gain perspective, if nothing else.
    I have all the life, experience and perspective I need, thank you. And if I ever somehow ended-up with yours, I'd open a vein.
    Last edited by DesElms; 02-24-2005 at 04:25 PM.
    Gregg L. DesElms
    [size=1][i]A lowly barnacle on the
    hull of the S.S. DegreeInfo[/i][/size]

    [size=1][b][i]Raising digression, tangential thinking and
    circumlocution to an absolute artform.[/b][/i][/size]

    Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi.
    Veritas nimium altercando amittitur.

    [size=1][b]USEFUL LINKS:[/b]
    [b]*[/b] Pop-up currency converter, [url=http://www.xe.com/pca/launch.cgi?FromSelect=EUR&ToSelect=USD
    ][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Articles you should not miss, [url=http://www.degreeinfo.com/articles.html][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Books you should not miss, [url=http://tenspeedpress.com/catalog/tenspeed/item.php3?id=2127][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and [url=http://www.degreemills.com][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Web sites you should not miss, [url=http://www.geocities.com/liu_jonathan/distance.html][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and [url=http://bain4weeks.com][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Get foreign degrees evaluated, [url=http://www.aacrao.org/credential/index.htm][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and/or [url=http://naces.org/members.htm][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Read all about accreditation and degree mills, [url=http://www.chea.org/degreemills/][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Check school/program accreditation, [url=http://chea.org/search/search.asp][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url] and [url=http://ope.ed.gov/accreditation/Search.asp][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Obtain international accreditation information, [url=http://www.inqaahe.org/members_view_all.cfm?mID=3&sID=22][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] Making post (and other) times display correctly, [url=http://forums.degreeinfo.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21247][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].
    [b]*[/b] DegreeInfo's Terms of Service (TOS) agreement, [url=http://www.degreeinfo.com/terms_policies.html][color=darkblue]here[/color][/url].

    [url=http://www.liberaloasis.com/][color=darkblue][b]LIBERAL OASIS[/b][/color][/url][/size]

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts




1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15