Time bomb fizzles

George Brown and I have been communicating with a reporter for a large daily owned by the New York Times, regarding a prominent local (where the paper is published) person with totally fake Bachelor's and Master's degrees (Harrington University). Here is the newspaper's depressing response to us after information was supplied. (Harrington is beyond all doubt a phony.)
--------------------------------------------The official in question is an Indian tribe's administrator in [name of] County who appears to have also falsified his undergraduate degree. We aren't likely to do a story on him falsifying his qualifications, however, since he's not technically an elected official and we'd run the risk of "outing" a private citizen when we normally don't do that. It also doesn't help such a story that the tribe loves him and has advise him to quit talking to us. Apparently they don't care what degrees he has or doesn't have.
----------------------------------------------

 

## "Outing" in some societies and areas of the world is regarded as a despicable and reprehensible act. It is the act of a coward or informer.

In countries where anti-discriminatuion laws are tight, such as Australia where it is for example, an offence to not employ someone because of their criminal record, and such a record if obtained without the person's approval is an offence, it is safer for George Brown an all others concerned that they make their mischief away from these shores.

We have a term here - "Dog" - one who barks when someone else offends, and apart from cases of capital significance, one who 'dogs' is not acceptable in our society.

Those who have wronged or defrauded will get their just recompense in the end - just hang around close enough to be able to clap if that is what turns you on.

Peter French

 

That should read ' ...BULLY or informer...' as cowardice it is NOT.

Bullying it is in the sense of '...intimidation or persecution of weaker people...'

I feel truly sorry for those who have felt the need to take, what may be for them, the only way to achieve degree holder status. The fact that they cannot accept their lot in life is sad, not their lot in life. The fact that they feel the need of some 'tag' as they are not satisfied within themselves is also sad. These people are to be pittied.

I am not writing as a degree apologist.

Those who seek to defraud exhibit an attitude that is inexcusable, but I still also pitty them. I hope and pray that one day they may realsie the folly of their ways, and I would seek to help them, NOT to condemn them. They have condemned themselves by their very action and i chose to leave it at that.

Persons, other than those in authorty to do so, who go out of their way to 'hunt out' offenders of any kind, have got a series of problems within themselves that they fail to, or chose to ignore. I also pity them. A trial by journalism is NOT a just trial. Who amongst us would opt for this?

If I was approached specifically on a matter, as I have been many times, I would not, have not and never will shirk from stating the facts, but only facts to the degree that they are or can be established.

I hold both John and George (who is a personal friend and will remain so) in the highest person esteem.

However, I distance myself from the 'outing' actions that take palce with some degree of glee, from time to time.

I know that many others hold this view also. It is a person view, and i am simply stating it clearly.

Peter French
Australia

 

With all due respect to Peter French, my view is that outing academic frauds is necessary. Depending on the circumstances of course, I believe that academic fraud is usually going to be illegal.

I think the situation is analogous to the drug abuse problem. I believe it is much better to go after both the drug users and the drug pushers.

 

Agreed, Peter! However, should they be allowed to continue in that fraud without being called to accountability?

It seems that I hear you saying we don't want to offend anyone, we only want to help. I concur that one's intent should never be to gleefully expose someone, as though one gained some sadistic pleasure from doing so. It is a matter of ethics, of doing what is right.

I guess (if we follow your logic) that if you were scheduled for surgery, and I knew that your surgeon had earned his MD from some substandard institution (e.g., Trinity), then I shouldn't tell you, right? I shouldn't expose him. Because I certainly would not want to offend anyone.

Fraudulent degrees defraud everyone: the general public, the degree holder, and even those with legitimate credentials.

It seems that I remember another guy that no one wanted to offend. Everyone just hoped the problem would go away, but it didn't. His name was Hitler.

Russell

 

There is a hell of a difference between you telling me that my doctor is a quack, and purposfully seeking out people - whether they be public figures as is the case stated, other people as in recent TV exposures in US, ort teahcers who have lost their jobs here in Australia.

Even IF the issue is serious, for example a school master, why should it habe to hit front pages or prime time/prime topic television?

When the chips fall for us, we are grateful to those who show us some consideration and respect, and give us another chance, even though our actions/behaviour have to be adjusted. If none other than I have had that experience, I feel sorry for them.

Peter French

 

You are correct in your observation, Peter. I am not promoting the intentional public embarrassment/humiliation of anyone. Common courtesy and civility should prevail here. However, those who hold fraudulent degrees should not be allowed to continue to use such credentials in their professional life.

Agreed, there are those who will turn this into a witch hunt, sadistically gloating everytime someone is exposed. If the general public, HR persons, etc., were more educated as to what is and is not a legitimate credential, this in itself would remedy much of the problem.

Russell

 

Russell,

I agree with your approach to this issue. Also, the people who obtain false credntials and use them to gain promotions, obtain jobs, etc. do bear a responsibility for their "time bomb" and not the person doing the exposing.

I do not agree with Peter's analysis:

"Originally posted by Peter French:
There is a hell of a difference between you telling me that my doctor is a quack, and purposfully seeking out people...Even IF the issue is serious...why should it have to hit front pages or prime time/prime topic television?"

If my doctor is a fraud and I know it the doctor needs to be reported to the appropriate authority. In any case it is more than likely going to get to the media. The media is also often working to expose consumer fraud. When a consumer is using the services of a person who turns out to be fraudulent it may not just be embarassing for the person being exposed but also criminal and their actions may have been life threatening.

John

 

I agree, John. It is ethically wrong to portray one's credentials as legitimate, when in fact they are not. The principle is the same as impersonating a police officer (i.e., claiming to be something one isn't), and last I heard this was illegal. And until there is some level of accountability the problem will continue.

Russell

 

In a lot of these cases we are NOT talking about Medicos or Police Officers.

This debate could rage for ages and we are all entitled to our opinions. I have stated mine. I am not an ambulance chaser nor a supporter of 'capital'. I hope that at this stage in my life I am less judgemental and more compassionate than I have been. Some people have been treated despicably - I don't subscrine to that action, wouldn't do it, can't support it and beleive that matters could be adjusted in far better ways.

These people have wives and kids as well remember and there is no prize for maximizing the extent of the trauma. Are we about solving the problem, or breaking the person and their relationships?

Think about it. Profession and practice are poles apart for some of us.

Peter

 

Solving the problem, Peter, not breaking the person.

Russell

 

_____________________________________________

I agree with Mr. Peter French. Sometimes, we have to strike a balance in life. Nothing is perfect and to err is human.

As long as the person who possessed the degree did not use it to harm others in the case of a bogus doctor or impersonating a police officer, it is by no means a bad fraudent possession.

In my opinion, the principle I rely to judge is " One can maximise one's benefit but not at the expense of others." So, if that guy possessed a questionable degree and did not use it to cause harm to anyone or anyone had been harmed by his possession of the questionable degree, I think it is alright.

Anyway, this guy maybe doing a great job or much more delicated than a PhD holder. And should we penalise him for possessing a questionable degree which his job does not depend on it

 

Peter is da man! I've posted on this subject a few times in the past and agree with 'da man'.

I *do* appreciate the roll of informing folks of frauds. I've got difficulty with chasing down folks and broadsiding them with "exposure" - esp. when it feeds a capital-centric television show. Read: Tabloidish gain at someone's pain.

I'm sure some is deserved. I'm sure that many others are innocently ignorant on the subject of bogus or defective degrees.

At the same time, I think most know my feelings on false degrees. I'm on the radical side of being "RA or nothing" (for US students). Due to my experience in the past, I have pretty hard feelings towards degree mills and even what many refer to as "legtimate / legal" schools. (Sorry if I push some buttons on that one!)

This forum has become a world leader in degree exposure. Fine. I'd feel more comfortable with my association with this forum if 'regulars' could at least gain some informal position on how to ethically 'expose' false degrees.

How about this as an alternative? Give the poor sap a warning that s/he is about to be 'exposed'. Invite them to this forum. Tell them - up front - what you are planning to tell the TV tabloids. Give them a chance to clean up their act. Seems like kinda an up-and-up thing to do.

Barry Foster

 

My opinion is that the fault falls to the fraud. If they are publically humiliated it is their fault. It is due to a poor choice that they made. They are being made an example of and witnesses to the humiliation would likely be deterred from similar actions themselves.

I think that your issue while having some validity is a separate issue.

 

I bet the paper in question WOULD do a story on any similar individual if that individual were a conservative Republican. Any bets?

 

Not sure about my take on this one. Wonder though how much time people have on their hands to sniff these things out. I guesse I am a bleeding heart and feel sorry for his family - why should they suffer for his actions? But then again he should have thought about that. How widespread is people using false degrees? Perhaps the employer should be responsible for doing his own research? I also believe in minding my own...... Ah - who the hell knows - if anything the readings been interesting.

 

I wonder what happens to people on the other end of the spectrum. My wife is an R.N. with two traditionally obtained masters (M.S.N. & M.Div.) and is also a licensed nurse practitioner--yet she doesn't work as a nurse practioner (except p/t) because being an R.N. pays more and is more convenient to schedule around our growing family. In order to not be overqualified and perhaps have the interviewer (who often is an R.N. without a masters) "jealous" with her (as is common I am told among nurses towards each other's higher credentials), she does not list any credentials above a B.S.N. on her resume when she applies to an R.N. position.

Is what she is doing unethical in the similar way that some people list bogus degrees? We are talking here of omission vs. commission.

I have to admit that there have been times in the past (long ago) where I have applied to a position and have left out all my theological degrees (two masters and a Ph.D.) because the job was secular and I didn't know if listing them would hinder me from getting the job that I was independently qualified to do with my secular credentials.

Imagine if my wife and I were caught--wouldn't it be funny if we were exposed publicly for not listing more credentials than we have?

Rest assured that I no longer have that dilema since I have employment where I can list all my credentials--however, my wife, is still in the same rut.

 

I heard of a guy that was concerned about his PhD causing problems on a resume,he put the bachelors degree under education and his other degrees under hobbies

Dan

 

Interesting perspective Esq. I have heard of prejudices with regard to religious degrees/experience. You encounter them from people who are not religious or at least somewhat anti christian and make comments. I remember someone questioning my resume as much of my work at that time although it varied from chaplain assistant to resource management was within a religious setting (Judeo-Christian primarily). This person was concerned about my fitting in in a multi faith atmosphere. I also had a boss who was herself religious say that anyone with an M.Div was probably somewhat egocentric/narcisitic.

I have wondered myself less about the fact that the name of the University I will get my doctorate from is the University of Zululand and more about the fact that it will be centered in Christian Counseling and what issues and prejudices that may cause. On the other hand I am at the point where if people don't like my interests and faith that is too bad.

North