Oregon / KWU settlement

http://web.hep.uiuc.edu/home/g-gollin/pigeons/


Oregon officials are also obligated under the settlement agreement to refrain from characterizing KWU as a diploma mill or substandard school on the Office of Degree Authorization website or elsewhere. The Attorney General's office also agreed to provide ODA personnel with a training session on defamation law.

 

Thank you for bringing us up to date on that.

 

Big deal - ODA just has to do the same things it has been doing, but do them differently, whilst KWU degree holders have to put something like 'Crap Degree' after their moniker. I fail to see any win for KWU graduates - imagine PhD [KWU- Crap degree]

 

You can spin it any way you want but the fact is that Oregon blinked. They obviously felt they had more to lose by going to trial. The comment on training in defamation probably means that ODA will not be so vocal in the future.

By the way, why didn't Alan Contreras who started a tread on this topic notify us? This must have been in the works for weeks.

 

The Official News Release

HEADLINE: Oregon Settles Federal Lawsuit Filed by Kennedy-Western University; State Officials Will Seek Changes to State Law Regulating the Use of Degrees from Unaccredited Universities

DATELINE: SALEM, Ore. Dec. 21, 2004

BODY:


Attorney General Hardy Myers and Kennedy-Western University (KWU) President Paul Saltman today announced that they have reached an out-of-court settlement of the University's Federal District Court lawsuit against Myers and Alan Contreras, Administrator of the Oregon Student Assistance Commission's Office of Degree Authorization (ODA).

KWU filed suit in July 2004 on behalf of three Oregon graduates to challenge a state law that makes it unlawful for a person to represent that he or she has a degree if that degree was granted by an unaccredited university. The lawsuit claimed that the Oregon law violated KWU graduates' constitutional rights by unreasonably restricting their ability to use a lawfully obtained academic credential. Under the settlement agreement, Myers and Contreras agreed that the State will not enforce this statute as long as KWU degree holders disclose their school's non-accredited status when representing their academic achievement.

The settlement does not require any Oregon employer to accept unaccredited degrees as valid credentials or change the requirements for state employment, professional licensure, college admission or other areas for which a degree from an accredited school is required. Degree holders who fail to disclose that their degrees are from unaccredited schools are still subject to civil and criminal penalties.

In addition, the settlement agreement provides that the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization and Attorney General Myers will make a good faith effort to secure an amendment of the statute during the State's next legislative session that would decriminalize the use of a non-accredited degree as long as degree holders disclose their schools' non-accredited status when stating their credentials for business or professional purposes.

According to the terms of the settlement agreement, all issues in the lawsuit will be resolved, and the lawsuit will be dismissed, once the contemplated legislation is passed. If the legislation is not enacted by the end of the 2007 legislative session, the lawsuit will move forward.

Oregon officials are also obligated under the settlement agreement to refrain from characterizing KWU as a diploma mill or substandard school on the Office of Degree Authorization website or elsewhere. The Attorney General's office also agreed to provide ODA personnel with a training session on defamation law.

"We believe that this agreement is fair and reasonable," stated Attorney General Myers. "It strikes a proper balance between protecting the rights of graduates and ensuring appropriate public disclosure."

"We are pleased that the State recognizes the need for changes to its regulations," stated KWU's Saltman. "We look forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation."

KWU is authorized by the State of Wyoming to offer academic degrees at the Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral level. KWU delivers its programs through a combination of online learning and directed study.

 

Re: Re: Oregon / KWU settlement

That is funny Peter. And while for whatver technical reason Oregon had to back down I have to agree with you. KWU got very negative exposure over the quality of their degrees (senate hearings, etc).

On another topic, I am forever grateful for this board and the education that I have recevied in accreditation issues, etc from Bear's Guides and this Board. It helped years ago when I first came in contact with the Mercian Rite Catholic Seminary and wrote to ask them about their acreditation agency and got told that the fancy sounding approval was themselves accrediting themselves. The Merican write has since moved and reincarnated a couple of times. Interesting blend of sort of orthodox church, catholic church and New Age.


North

 

Not much of a spin. KWU "students" still have to say that it is unaccredited or they are breaking the law. Wow, big win there!

Hardly blinked, by the way. This is the way that many of these cases are dealt with. I'm actually really surprised that KW caved. They got hardly nothing out of the deal. I full expected them to take it all the way.



Tom Nixon

 

KWU sure got more out of this than I ever thought that they would. I do not see how anyone can say this is not a negative for the ODA. If unaccredited school graduates, that are not approved, can now use there degrees, and the ODA cannot even call them substandard then that is clearly damaging to the ODA's mission. I think the ODA may very well be no more in the near future which is a shame. I think the AG sent the ODA down the river just for convenience.

 

I hear the initial proposal was to require those with unaccredited degrees to display a scarlet "U" on their resumes, but this was the final settlement.

 

That is far from where they were. Before this graduates could not place them on a resume or business card without the fear of being prosecuted for doing so. Now even if a school is substandard or even a degree mill a graduate of such school can simply put unaccredited in the description. Now SRU, Hamilton, Berne or any others can do the same. How many people understand what unaccredited means? I sure did not when I first got into this.

 

My personal experience and the Rich Douglas study indicates that when a school is identified as not-accredited that the accepts drops way down.

The best chance an academic fraud has in getting away with using their bogus degree is ignorance. I think having to identify the degree as not-accredited will mostly eliminate the chance of letting a degree slip by due to ignorance.

 

Ah, but what if someone places unaccredited beside his or her degree, and includes a cover letter with an explanation which includes that accreditation is voluntary in the US?

This would be true, and they could use some of the quotes that many of these schools use from the US DOE about accreditation. This would most certainly leave the unknowing thinking that accreditation is not that big of a deal.

 

But that leaves the person in an argument/counter-argument situation. When employers get a look at that, they'll run. They don't understand accreditation as it is, but they think it is important. Trying to argue it isn't is a losing battle, complicating matters. Employers look for simple answers, not complicated ones.

 

I think what is actually going to happen is that people are going to be uninformed regarding this latest agreement. They will prepare their CVs and resumes as they see fit. With this agreement not to prosecute, and the possibility of different interpretations as to what is acceptable disclosure in different circumstances, I think the ODA will not be able to effectively enforce these new policies except in the most severe cases of fraud.

 

Interesting viewpoint, but I don't believe that is what the agreement says. More accurately it says they won't prosecute those who disclose properly. Those not doing so are open to full prosecution. Then the question comes up WILL they prosecute at all?! I wish I knew more about the conversation between Alan and Hardy Myers. That would tell us the whole story.

"Under the settlement agreement, Myers and Contreras agreed that the State will not enforce this statute as long as KWU degree holders disclose their school's non-accredited status when representing their academic achievement."

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20041221005728&newsLang=en

 

I have to agree. To almost all people outside of DI, unaccredited equals degree mill. It may not be true, but that is the connection almost all people automatically make.

 

As an example of the confusion that will result from the ODA's recent agreement (i.e. graduates of unaccredited schools must disclose that) the Merriam Webster definition for "accreditation" states:

"1 : to give official authorization to or approval of: a : to provide with credentials; especially : to send (an envoy) with letters of authorization b : to recognize or vouch for as conforming with a standard c : to recognize (an educational institution) as maintaining standards that qualify the graduates for admission to higher or more specialized institutions or for professional practice
2 : to consider or recognize as outstanding
3 : ATTRIBUTE, CREDIT
synonym see APPROVE"

In the case of the 254 State Approved schools listed by the California Postsecondary Education Commission www.cpec.ca.gov these schools are accredited by the above definition. Holders of degrees from these schools may rightly object to having to place "UNACCREDITED" next to their approved credentials to satisfy some vague notion which could be discriminatory. Nor will the ODA be in a position to review every electronic or physical CV, resume, and job application. I suppose if it ever comes up and depending on the specific instance, the ODA can provide further direction.

 

Well....

Clearly Accredited and State Approved are two different things. I doubt Merriam Webster's holds a lot of weight in a court of law. However, your point about not seeing resumes, job applications, etc is probably much more to the point. Again the question is will or won't the ODA enforce the law. I don't think any of us know the answer.

 

Right, but the agreement doesn't specify the form those disclosures must take. So what is "properly" disclosing? They didn't define it. It doesn't say disclosure must be included in a resume or CV. It doesn't even specifiy that disclosures must be in writing, which leaves it open to verbal disclosures.

Probably not. Partly since they left the door open for verbal disclosures, the abscence of which would be difficult to prove conclusively.


Kit

 

I was with you right up until you said verbal. Verbal isn't going to fly in any court room I have ever been in.