CPU/Commonwealth U & Oregon

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by Guest, May 20, 2001.

Loading...
  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    It appears that in spite of the new Malawi accreditation, CPU/Commonwealth U is still on Oregon's list of degrees which may not be used in Oregon.

    North
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Forgot the link:
    http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

    North

     
  3. David Yamada

    David Yamada New Member

    Despite honest intentions, Oregon may have gone too far with this regulation. It raises legitimate constitutional free speech issues.
     
  4. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Thank you. Also, I have had trouble with the "list first, evaluate later" approach. And is there an evaluation process? I couldn't find one--except for one guy's judgment and effort.

    If Oregon wants to try to ban the use of degrees from unaccredited schools (except the ones that apply for the state's approval), fine. No, not fine, but at least it is a blanket policy. But to list some schools that do not meet their criteria but not all is haphazard at best. And the notion of "sort of" listing a school while you figure out the school's situation is amateurish.

    Does anyone even know what procedures are in place for a school to apply and be evaluated for approval? What criteria are used (except for bowing to accreditation)?

    If Alan wants to have a list, then that list ought to number in the hundreds, not dozens.

    Rich Douglas
     
  5. David Yamada

    David Yamada New Member

    The reach of the regulation is what makes this such a notable incursion into free speech. If, after a careful evaluation, they want to say that certain schools are mills (say, like Trinity), let them do so from a consumer protection standpoint. (BTW, they'd best be careful about it, lest they have a defamation claim on their hands.) But for the state to prohibit people from simply putting it on their resume definitely restricts freedom of expression, and the state would be hardpressed to say that compelling interests justify such an intrusion.

    Even without the regulation, employers would be free to reject candidates who present mill degrees as their credentials. Indeed, an employer would be free to restrict its hiring to Ivy League "magnas" if it so chooses.

    I haven't looked at the regulation, but it could also apply to legitimate foreign degrees as well. I wonder, for example, if a Heriot-Watt MBA makes it past this regulation.
     
  6. ahchem

    ahchem New Member

    You certainly bring up a good point and the reach of this law would seem to put the idea of Full Faith and Credit in danger. (As I recall you are an attorney and would understand this far better than me).

    However, from what I have seen on this forum and elsewhere, it appears that restricting what one puts on his or her resume or business card is not at all uncommon in other parts of the world.

    As I recall one can not even reference a degree not recognized by the government of Germany, even if that degree is completely valid, while working or doing business in that country. So there is some precedent for this even if it is in a country whose laws don't apply to the US Constitution.

    Jeff Welch
     
  7. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    Jeff Welch says, However, from what I have seen on this forum and elsewhere, it appears that restricting what one puts on his or her resume or business card is not at all uncommon in other parts of the world.

    Ten years ago, roughly, when John Walsh of Brannagh, owner of Greenwich, completed his Columbia Pacific University doctorate, he was not allowed to put his Ph.D. on his passport (where his Australian traditional law degree was already listed). He brought legal action against the appropriate government department, and won, so he now has his Ph.D. (earned at the time Columbia Pacific was California-approved) on the passport.
     
  8. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I think that Heriot-Watt would qualify under ORS348.609(1)(a) as possessing the foreign equivalent of USDoE recognized accreditation. The law doesn't seem to define any further what that means, but from some of his comments I believe that Mr. Contreras is using the GAAP criteria.

    Here's the relevant ORS section:
    http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors

     
  9. David Yamada

    David Yamada New Member

    Bill, thanks for posting the regulation. I agree re Heriot-Watt being fine. But this does confirm for me that Oregon might've way overreached on this. Someday, someone there will bring a legal challenge to it, and it will be interesting to see what happens.
     
  10. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Hi David. I'm not an attorney, but speaking as a layman here I agree with you. I think that this Oregon statute is overly broad and probably would not survive court challenge.

    I'm troubled by a law outlawing any claims or representations to having a non-accredited degree. I mean, what if a person prints out a novelty degree from General Delivery University and parades it around a Portland party for laughs?

    The Oregon statute apparently doesn't prohibit boasting a non-accredited degree until after the offender has been warned by the ODA to desist. But while the law seems to mandate ODA to set up a complaint procedure, there is no indication of what the permitted and forbidden uses of a fake degree might be.

    On the other hand, there are probably American precedents for this kind of thing. There are laws against impersonating a police officer for example. And the application of those laws have a fuzzy cutoff that allows kids to play 'cops and robbers' and buy fake badges at toy stores. So can you draw a parallel to a law outlawing impersonating a college graduate?

    There are laws against practicing medicine (or a host of other professions) without a state license. One could probably argue that this Oregon statute is just an extension of that legal principle to all degrees, not just MD's. Of course, a response could be that nobody is prohibiting an unlicensed MD from saying that he has the degree, only from practicing medicine. So where does claiming a fake degree end and using a fake degree start? What if claiming the degree induces somebody to offer you a job?

    I don't see a restraint of trade issue here since states already routinely pass judgement on out-of-state educational qualifications as to whether they meet in-state licensing requirements.

    Bottom line: I agree that this law probably wouldn't survive challenge, but it is kind of fascinating all the same.
     
  11. David Yamada

    David Yamada New Member

    Bill, I think the major difference between, say, practicing medicine or law without a license and simply listing something on your resume is that the latter does not necessarily constitute misrepresentation or fraud.

    In addition, the potential gray areas are significant. What happens, for example, if someone earns a degree from an RA school that has since lost its accreditation? Or the other way around, i.e., a holder of a degree from a school that at the time of graduation was unaccredited but has since gained RA? Is either or both in violation of the reg?

    I confess that I'm biased against overreaching governmental restrictions on speech. I also think the regulation implicitly increases the power held by accreditors, and that's not necessarily a good thing.
     
  12. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    I'm not disagreeing with your basic premise but I believe the law would be clear here. If the school was accredited when you earned your degree then it is an accredited degree. Otherwise it's not. I really don't think this is an example of a gray area according to the law.

    I share some of the concerns expressed here regarding government regulations and imperfect laws. However, I argue that there's no such thing as a perfect law and laws will have problems and exceptions. That is why judges need leeway in sentencing. I applaud Oregon's attempt at trying to solve what is a growing social problem and I watch the "experiment" with interest.
     
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    But it is a grey area in real life. There are many, many graduates of nontraditional programs who earned their degrees before their respective schools were accredited, yet their degrees enjoy the same acceptance as those earned after accreditation. For example, The Union for Experimenting Colleges and Universities was established in the early 1970's, with Ph.D.'s being awarded as early as 1974. Accreditation didn't come until 1985, after thousands of degrees were awarded. Walden and Sarasota, both started around same time, were accredited even later.

    There might be a few instances where the timing of a school's accreditation is an issue, but not many. But the opposite can be quite dramatic: earning a degree from an accredited school, only to see its accreditation pulled (or have it go out of business entirely). When someone goes to check on your degree--wham!

    The whole ODA is a big reach by a little state. They have neither the resources nor the magnitude of problem (affecting Oregonians) to truly accomplish their stated objective. Instead, they say if you use or offer an unaccredited degree without their prior approval, you're in violation (if called on it). But have you noticed that they don't have an APPROVED list of unaccredited schools, just an incomplete unapproved list? And on their unapproved list, they say "Some of the institutions listed below are diploma mills." Which ones? Why only one list? The reader can't discern which are diploma mills and which are not but haven't applied for approval. (Neither can Oregon!) Why not a list for schools that aren't approved and another one for diploma mills? They should set their rules within the Constitution, drop the list, and go back to complaining about Californians.

    Rich Douglas

    P.S. I'm reminded of the unaccredited Gulf States University (originally called Southeastern University, but unrelated to the South Carolina degree mill of the same name). Gulf States went out of business. They're students were transferred to the then-unaccredited Sarasota to complete their degrees. Of course, Sarasota is now accredited. They lucked into that one.

    I'm also reminded of International College in Los Angeles. This unaccredited, but good, little school offering one-on-one mentoring went out of business. Its students transferred to William Lyon University. When I surveyed graduates of six nontraditional schools (including William Lyon), boy! Were those people mad! They hated going from their cozy, nurturing, nontraditional school to an impersonal, process-oriented one. Oh, and one that didn't become accredited AND went out of business. Sometimes you just can't win.
     
  14. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I don't see a lot of difference. A person practicing medicine without a licence isn't necessarily committing fraud, and the person putting a bogus degree on his or her resume may well be.

    The phony physician may be a medical school dropout with a lot of knowledge. Suppose that he or she sets up as a GP in an underserved community with no doctor and is careful to stay within his or her range of competency. Operating in the manner of a nurse-practitioner, in other words. It's easy to imagine no one suffering any damage and lives actually being saved.

    On the other hand if a job applicant lists a bogus degree on his resume, an employer will probably understand it to mean that the applicant has the skills and knowledge common to holders of that degree. If the person is hired and placed into a position of responsibility for which he isn't qualified, and if damages occur as a result, I think you may have an argument for fraud.

    As I see it, the point in both the medicine-without-a-license case and the ODA case is to prevent fraud before it occurs by reducing the danger of misrepresentation that leads to subsequent damages.

    I agree. I'm troubled by such a draconian law being so vague and unclear. Of course, in real life that may be the exact best thing. Apparently it is legal to claim any kind of degree in Oregon unless someone complains. Then the ODA can order you to desist unless your degree falls within one of the protected clauses in the law. So there is some built-in leeway for common sense to prevail here. Mr. Contreras' office needn't issue an order to desist in every case. If your school subsequently achieved RA after you graduated, he could let it slide. If you only used your GDU Ph.D. in Sorcery as a joke at parties he might laugh too. But he has the power to order misrepresentations to cease before they become frauds.

    I would like to see more indication of how those decisions would be made though. The law has to be applied evenhandedly.

    I think that I'm perhaps a little more biased against the degree-mills. That makes me sympathetic to Oregon's efforts.

    I think that most people are willing to see government take a strong regulatory role at the producer-end, through approving and overseeing schools. The problem that distance education creates is that this regulation can be anywhere on Earth. It is spread over 10,000+ different higher education institutions in many hundreds of separate jurisdictions. The State of Oregon can regulate higher education within its own borders, but it can't control the whole world.

    So Oregon is trying the unusual strategy of regulating the consumer-end. If they have no approval authority over weird universities in St. Kitts (or Wyoming), they can (arguably) regulate the use of degrees earned from those places within the borders of Oregon.

    I'm not sure if the courts will buy that, but it is an interesting approach. And as has been pointed out, it isn't unprecedented. Several European countries apparently do the same kind of thing.
     

Share This Page