Columbia Pacific happenings

I noticed on the CPU Alumni website that there is a move to sue the state of California, I would assume for closing down the school.

I'm not sure what they hope to accomplish, but it should be interesting to follow.


Bruce

 

This statement has been made many times by Les Carr since 1996.

Dr. Carr said it again last week, and added that next week (that is to say, presumably, between October 7th and 14th), his Columbia Commonwealth University will be appealing Oregon's decision to put them on the list of schools that are illegal in that state.

Let's watch this one.

 

I noticed that there's a photograph of Earon. Kind of a wholesome Canadian look, I'd say.

I'm not clear what the point of this legal threat is. CPU's court case has already been heard, and it went against them both at the trial and appeal levels. You can't sue the legal system for damages because you didn't win.

 

Re: Re: Columbia Pacific happenings

Looks a little like the grandson of the actor who played Colonel Crighton (??)/Dr. Bombay/.

Very British look.

I am not usre about the suit except that they if their accusations against the State are accurate then they may have a legit beef. There seem to have been some mis steps (eg the case of the black profs).

North

 

This seems to be a move by alumni rather than the school itself. The website mentions a rough cost of $100 to join the suit.


Bruce

 

Les Carr, co-owner of Columbia Pacific, wrote me about two years ago that they had found someone with the Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education who would testify that she had heard the director and the attorney saying that they were going to "go after" Columbia Pacific, and "get them, no matter what."

That would have been persuasive testimony, but I don't believe it ever happened.

 

If you visited an organized crime taskforce, you might hear a prosecutor vowing to "go after" a mobster. How would that imply that the mobster is innocent?

It seems to me that personal feelings are of far less relevance than the facts of the case. And in CPU's case, those facts presumably were heard at trial and reviewed during appeal.

I expect that many law enforcement officials, regulatory officials and trial attorneys express their determination to pursue their cases and to prevail. At least I hope so.

 

Unless California declared their existing degrees illegal or illegitimate, I don't see how the alumni of CPU have STANDING to sue.

Nosborne, JD

 

That's what I was thinking. Even if they had standing, exactly what would be the basis of their suit?

It seems like a major case of sour grapes to me.


Bruce

 

Sometimes misguided people think that they can use the courts to vindicate before all the world some debatable action they've taken. That's not what the Courts are for, however. You need to have some sort of material interest at stake in order to sue.

It is much easier to visualize the alumni suing CPU for fraud.

Nosborne, JD

 

I agree. The BPPVE has stated that all degrees earned before a certain date are legal. Dr. Carr should be very careful. The students/graduates probably have a better case against CPU and its officers than the State of California.

 

Well, hm. I suppose they could call it defamation...
Well, I certainly wouldn't accept them as clients.

Nosborne, JD
(Who knows NOTHING about libel law)

 

Well, let me tell you something about libel law that you're probably not aware of then. I have it on very poor authority (namely a kook that was threatening me with a libel suit because I called him an academic fraud), that the truth is NOT a complete defense to libel here in the USA. I also must point out (with great amusement) that he was making this argument very publicly on an internet Newsgroup.

 

That would require that they admit to themselves that CPU isn't exactly Harvard-West, something I can't envision them doing (at least not those who frequent Earon's website).


Bruce

 

I know this is opinion and conjecture, so here's mine: not likely. Schools go out of business all the time. Unless the students/graduates can somehow show fraud or negligence, I don't see how CPU is liable for anything. (Temper that with some questions about their post-1997 activities in California while appealing their case. Those people might have a beef.)

There was a time when CPU seemed a reasonable alternative, especially at the doctoral level, and especially considering the paucity of accredited, DL doctoral programs, along with the RA's reluctance to accredit them. During the 1970's, the feeling was that the RA's were becoming irrelevant because of their disconnect between their standards and outcomes--counting the number of books in the library instead of measuring institutional and individual accomplishments. Experienced professionals had very few places to turn, and there wasn't much difference between Walden and CPU, at least on the surface. Because of accreditation's perceived declining relevance, many people turned to these programs. History now tells us that CPU was not a good alternative for many. But it didn't always look that way.

 

Sorry, I wasn't clear. Of course students are entitled to refunds, and California--to their credit--has a fund in which schools deposit monies for this situation. I meant that I don't think students would prevail in a lawsuit without CPU being fraudulent or negligent. I've never heard anything along those lines, despite much hand-wringing over whether or not CPU should have had its license pulled.

 

David Boyd:
Under California law, this gives students a right to a refund. This is a strict liability statute, no intentional violation need be shown.

John:
My understanding, David, has been that this applied only to students resident in California.

And my further understanding, Rich, is that the California refund fund, to which all unaccredited schools contribute, is also available only to California residents.

Furthermore, I've had anguished letters from 4 or 5 Californians in recent years, claiming that they were told by the people in Sacramento that the refund fund is based on time spent. If a school goes out of business one month before you were to complete a two-year course of study, you would only get 1/24th of your tuition back from the fund. (I haven't independently verified this.)

One wonders: Since K-Dubya-U cannot accept students living in California, even though they are run from California, presumably they do not have to contribute to the refund fund.

 

Bill Huffman: I have it on very poor authority (namely a kook that was threatening me with a libel suit because I called him an academic fraud), that the truth is NOT a complete defense to libel here in the USA.

John: I am pretty sure your 'kook' was right. As it was explained to be by a man earning $385 an hour*, libelous statements need to be true and relevant.

The example given was of a newspaper that reported that a candidate for office had been arrested for prostitution 30 years earlier. Although true, it was held to be irrelevant, and thus libelous. If, however, the candidate had been lobbying for (or against) prostitution, it might have been held to be relevant.

So if I learned that, for instance, a vociferous K-Dubya-U defender had 17 convictions for pedophilia, tore tags off mattresses, tortured cattle on her Wyoming ranch, assassinated Kennedy, and regularly drove over 55 on the interstate, I would not dare mention it. But if he or she had been rapped on the knuckles by Sister Impedimenta at the convent school for cheating on her spelling test, that would be quite all right to mention.

John Bear, who bought his Harvard law degree
from the company called BACD ("Buy a College
Degree") for $58.

________
* Or, as I thought about it at the time, more than a ten cents per second.

 

You know, you couldn't throw dimes at him at that pace.