Stamford Hill University time bomb has just begun ticking

Ezell and I have just begun consulting in a situation where the principal of a big-city US high school has a totally fake doctorate (and, of course, insists on being called "Doctor"). A teacher at the school has been trying to blow the whistle, but is being thwarted at every turn. Superintendent has no interest. Teacher can't even get on the agenda at a School Board meeting. Principal earning doctoral pay. The would-be whistle-blower has prepared an excellent 20-page documentation of the phoniness of Stamford Hill. Our advice so far is (in part) to send this report by certified mail to the key players, and to go to the media. (This is a city where a local TV station has done two fake degree exposes in the past.)

Any side bets on which of the five 'standard' responses this principal will use:
1. Stonewalling.
2. Attacking the whistleblower.
3. Claiming that Stamford Hill is a legitimate accredited school and he did lots of work.
4. Claiming her was fooled by this excellent and clever fraud.
5. Adfmitting he knowingly bought a fake degree, resigning, and refunding his added doctoral pay to the district.

 

One through 3, simultaneously. 4 is a stretch, 5 - never.

J.

 

This was an interesting thread. I especially like the dissertation with typos.
http://www.degreeinfo.com/general-distance-learning-discussions/30931-heard-stamford-hill-university.html

 

I know what the school's response will be: A doctorate isn't required for the position anyway, so it's not an issue.

Because, you know, who cares about the principal's integrity?

 

Smh. Reminds me of this vid of a news story I saw on Youtube where a lady faked a degree in order to work with kids with developmental disabilities in the local public school system. I forget how she got outed, but when the school found out they did nothing, saying that she had done a great job so it didn't matter. To top it off, they put her in school to get a real degree.

I give the reporter credit for asking "Wouldn't it have been a better move to just fire her? Especially with her working with children and all?"

All this type of response to egregious misrepresentation does is encourage it. I get that to an organization getting the job done is priority #1, but this do-nothing approach has an ethical impact at a much deeper and far-reaching level and it affects everyone to (varying degrees).

 

Quite likely. But it is an issue. The guy is getting doctoral pay, we're told. Then again, I don't suppose the school, the Board or the Superintendent care any more about thousands of taxpayers' dollars than they do about this person's integrity.

J.