Catalogue of leading degree-mill operators.

I think it would be useful to catalogue past and current leading degree-mill operators. This could be a wonderful resource for journalists and others to gain an overview of the field. For example, some names are occasionally bandied about on this site that I've either not heard of or don't recall the significance of. I think this thread should have entries that simply list the degree-mill and accreditation-mill operators and their respective corporations. I think the accent should be on "leading" degree-mill operators, and not just everybody who starts these things up, since the names could run into the 100s. Just a--what do you call it--parade of horribles?

I don't recall his name, but I think a good person to mention would be the fellow who has registered degree-info.com and was such a destructive force on the old AED forum.

Just to get the ball rolling, let me start with some names:

Bilal Nasrullah
David LeCornu
Abdul Basit
Maxine Asher
Franklin T. Burroughs
Colleen Twomey Boyer

Who else? (I think the names of degree-mill operators who have sold off their mills of been shut down by the FBI would also be of interest.)

 

Ernest Sinclair
Edward Reddick
Ron Pellar
The Fowler Family
Anthony Geruntino
Alfred Q. Jarrette
George Lyon Cook
Eugene Stone
Gordon da Costa
Ray Sarna
Clarence Franklin
Walter Rummersfield
Bruce Copen
Lane Williams (and daughter)
James Kirk
L. Mitchell Weinberg
And, of course, the ever-popular.....Les Snell!

Rich Douglas

 

Kind of like having a published list of known pedophiles I imagine. I also imagine that the originator of such a list should carefully construct a set of criteria for who makes the list and on what basis and should have some sound legal counsel prior to the undertaking. McCarthyism returned?

There are very few real investigative journalists in existence these days, at least that look at all the facts in depth. There are a lot of "journalists" that merely parrot the information provided by the source, which often lacks any credibility beyond opinion. It may just be the media system. Once the media machine starts grinding out such names there is little to stop the process. Individuals lives could be severely interfered with. Some may deserve this grass roots justice and some not. Unsolicited advice - get legal counsel.
Earon

 

Regarding Mr. Kavanagh's comments, I think that the standard, or bar, for people being considered "degree mill operators" is that they at least operate an unaccredited university of doubtful worth. Then, to make a list of horribles, they might be leading, persistent, unrepentant, and pernicious operators of degree mills who use mail-drop addresses to muddy jurisdictional waters and escape personal responsibility, etc., etc.

Since there isn't a definite or legal definition of "degree mill operator," and such a status is not defined as a crime, I don't think I'm as concerned as Mr. Kavanagh is. While I and most everyone else might think of degree mills as entirely fraudulent, I am not asking for, or encouraging, a list of "people who are committing fraud." There's a big difference, and such a list as that is what could lead to problems.

 

This a value judgement issue. It is also a vigilante approach which I abhor.

If the degreeinfo moves into this territory, I move out, and so do many others.



------------------
Peter French,
MEd MAcc (UNE) CMA
Australia

 

I published a list of "classics" that are beyond controversy--and in some cases, life itself. None are controversial--they're either dead (like da Costa and Cook), gone (Geruntino and the Fowlers), or so notorious that we can all agree upon the nature of their activities (Pellar, Stone, Snell).

The point I was making is that this kind of thing has been around forever, and such a list would be endless (and thus, futile). I should have added commentary to the list.

It does little good to antagonize operators of programs we don't like by calling their operations "degree mills" or "diploma mills." Even Levicoff's situation with MIGS, despite MIGS' ultimate embarassment, caused no small amount of grief to Steve. Whether or not it was worth it is for him to decide, but it was not without cost. It is simpler--and safer--to discuss the facts without drawing conclusions or pasting labels.

Rich Douglas, who is nonetheless very disappointed in Eugene Stone.

 

I haven't paid too much attention to degree mill operators in the past. So, who is Eugene Stone?

John

 

Just a bit of unsolicited advice to anyone tempted to post some names in this thread...

I would be very careful about naming names, as Rich pointed out even a baseless lawsuit can cause many headaches and unwanted grief.

Of course, I think it's fairly safe to list a Federal prisoner (Pellar) and a Federal fugitive (Snell).

Bruce

 

As to your last point - maybe. Current activities in certain quarters indicate that even doing something as 'safe' as that has its unnerving and somewhat threatening consequences.

What does concern me is how this quickly develops into 'outing' and 'viglante' type activities. I have written about this before and will not give my support to it. It may be acceptable in US to name paedophiles, and have every person's criminal record open to the public. Other countries are not prepared to do this. Is this group global or American? So where are the standards of conduct in that sense?

Addititonally I am not in favour of contacting third parties to those suspected of having fradulently obtained a degree. Some one may have a degree from what some may regard as a blatant mill. Did this person know this? What work did they do for the degree? Why did they choose that institution? Some have gone directly to the employers and never as much as considered the rights of the degree holder - what is wrong with contacting them? I regard this action as reprehensible. Would we like to be treated this way in an area of our lives that someone else decides does not meet their rules?

I humbly submit that we should pause and consider.

Peter French
Australia

 

Starrmustgo,
If you were going to be the originator and publisher of that list would you be willing to stand behind your own finger pointing in a congruent fashion and identify yourself using your own name?

I find it interesting that you want to have names named without naming your own in either your profile or postings (this thread for sure). Speaking of names, feel invited to call me Earon.

Earon Kavanagh
(who's posted here since early 2001
and on alt.education.distance since early 1996).

 

In the US, yes it is acceptable to name pedophiles in certain states under the "sex offender registry". Everyone's criminal record open to the public? No, that doesn't happen unless you're a sexual predator.

The "process" is making names & addresses available of known (tried, convicted, & sentenced) sex offenders to people who live in the vicinity of the offender. Every request is accompanied by a stern warning that all information is not to be used for any illegal purposes (with criminal penalties attached).

As a parent-to-be, I'm glad this information is available. As a police officer, I can tell you that pedophiles are never cured. Never.

To shift this back on-topic, I would once again warn everyone to be careful in naming alleged degree mill operators. Even a frivoulous lawsuit will cause big headaches.

Bruce

 

I'm with Peter French on this issue. I can't abide the "holier than tho" approach: sure, discuss the merits or otherwise of providers and give an opinion, but a witch hunt is altogether too smug.

The world is not black and white. There is no right and wrong, just shades of grey.

------------------
Peter Tucker
Australia

 

Dear Earon,

I am opposed to publishing my name on the Web, since matters of privacy are involved and since there are a lot of kooks and crazies out there.

I tend to be highly inquisitive, but I don't think my stance is very (or at all) hypocritical because anyone else can choose to protect their privacy online. I think my stance is extremely unhypocritical when it comes to degree mill operators, because they have--for, what, the last 10 years?--been so very happy to put themselves out there. Aren't people like Pellar and Snell caught largely because they so happily announce to the world their wonderfulness?

Dear rest of you,

Since my own interest is in having names to (eventually) research for their significance in the world of degree mills, this thread has already served my purposes. It's been very educational, for example, just to look up the career of Les Snell.

If I ever publish a book on degree mill operators, I will happily discuss people and their careers. If you write about people who are doing things that are bad, whether in a mere list or in more nuanced and detailed way, are you going on a "witch hunt"? If I write a book about the sexual and moral hypocrisy of people like Newt Gingerich and the other politicians who went after Clinton, am I going on a "witch hunt"?

The problem with lists of sex offenders is not the mere existence and publishing of lists of offenders. Rather, the problem is that the law is poorly formulated and tars people with too broad a brush. Not every sex offender is a sexual predator. Don't 19 year olds who have consensual sex with 17 year olds end up getting the same treatment as true rapists?

If we're going to discuss only people who have been found in the courts to be degree mill operators, the situation is a lot more clear cut. Most degree mill operators are getting off scot-free. For the most part, you have to be running quite an operation to get shut down by the authorities, yes?

Once their less-than-wonderful history is known, it's fair game to discuss it. It's not the same thing as lists of sex offenders, because sex offenders cannot just change their name and move on and rebuild their lives, but must be "tracked." Convicted degree mill operators are welcome to go and sin no more.

 

For the record, every name I listed has been discussed in print regarding degree mill activities. No news in that list.

Rich Douglas

 

Fine, but then you may be ignored, because "you" don't exist; only the persona you create does.

This kind of board serves one of two purposes. First, it can be a place where people share conversation and ideas conveniently; things they would do face-to-face if they could. Second, it becomes a facade for people to hide behind. While some who conceal their identities comport themselves in a civil fashion, the vast majority of the bad actors are anonymous.

Rich Douglas

 

Stone founded the once-promising Clayton University. First named Open University, then American International Open University, it settled on Clayton--named after a St. Louis suburb. During the 1970's and early '80's, Clayton looked like it might actually become a legitimate alternative university. While there were some shaky shennanigans early on, Clayton was substantial enough to begin corresponding with the NCA regarding accreditation. Also, Clayton produced enough evidence of the acceptance of their credits and degrees by accredited schools to be listed by the US Office of Education, a process no longer available. But instead of building on that basis, "Darth" Stone took Clayton to the dark side. By the end of the 80's, Clayton had shut down in Missouri. It now sells degrees from Hong Kong, or trades them for membership in certain quasi-professional organizations. Missouri no longer licenses the school, but their website still claims authority from the state to award degrees.

Rich Douglas

 

Bruce,

Since this statement is made in the context of degree-mill operators, might one surmise that degree-mill operators are never cured either? That they will indeed find some venue (remote islands, other planets, cities beneath the sea, etc.) to promote their product?

BTW, would you be willing to serve as the DegreeInfo Law Enforcement Officer? It seems we might need some protection if names start surfacing!

Russell

 

People are welcome to ignore me. Luckily, the rules of this site seem to help prevent people from playing too many games with personas, and seem to require that these people (or personas) take some responsibility for what they say.

[/QUOTE]This kind of board serves one of two purposes. First, it can be a place where people share conversation and ideas conveniently; things they would do face-to-face if they could. Second, it becomes a facade for people to hide behind. While some who conceal their identities comport themselves in a civil fashion, the vast majority of the bad actors are anonymous.[/QUOTE]

But I doubt the majority of the anonymous are bad actors.

The worst actors that I've seen on this site do not seem to be anonymous....

 

One of the problems with that stance on being unnamed while wanting to name others is that you, the unnamed, could be perceived with a certain level of distrust, as in "What has he got to hide", particularly given the history of this group's predecessor, and some of us have been having these conversations for many years so we have seen some interesting characters some disguised some not. We have a basic rule at the discussion board on http://www.altcpualumni.org - people have to use their real name and that's about accountability to the rest of the users (we also closed the discussion board to the public for similar reasons - people showing up with new handles and making allegations etc., without being educated in the issues).

Another question that shows up - "Who gets to decide who is less-than-wonderful and on what basis? I am really not sure there are any real experts here, but there are a lot of people that are very experienced in distance and nontraditional education, as consumers and as people who keep up to date on schools they'd trust and schools they'd stay away from and who also support consumers to make good choices. But as somebody already mentioned, it is a shade-of-gray world.

Most if not all RA schools know damn well who's degree they will accept and who's they won't accept for further study. Real universities are already in the business of classifiying people in terms of "knowledge" attained, and classifying what is marketable knowledge. The criteria employed by RA schools, and already in existence, speaks enough on its own. If consumers are made aware of these kinds of norms that already exist and are coached to know what their real short term and long term needs are and select only degrees that meet both needs, the consumer is more informed and can make a good choice.

Earon

 

I won't repeat what others have said about legal liability and vigilantism. But I do want to add a new point:

Posting a list of degree-mill operators will be of no use or interest except to an ever shrinking circle of DL-buffs. The vast majority of the public won't have a clue who these people are. I follow DL and I don't recognize most of them.

The public finds unknown schools on the web. It knows them by name, but it doesn't know who owns them.

Instead of posting a list of names that nobody has ever heard of, it might make more sense to create an index of schools. Then if people are ambitious, information could be posted on each one such as accreditation (none), address (mailbox), history (on the run), legal authorization (hazy) ownership (anonymous), faculty (anonymous), links to other non-accredited schools and enterprises (shady) etc. You could create a page for each one.

It still might be lawsuit-bait though. But if you refrained from over-editorializing and took a "just the facts ma'am" approach, providing verifable sources for everything posted (usually from the schools' own websites), it could be valuable. Kind of like an amplification of the later chapters of 'Bear's Guide'.

But given the AED attacks on John Bear and now George Brown (who did something like I'm suggesting), I don't know if any of us are interested in the shit we would get if we crossed these people. It could conceivably even be physically dangerous.

So I'm not really recommending it.

On the other hand, if something with more muscle like Alan Contreras' ODA would do it.... It wouldn't take much to expand and amplify Mr. Contreras' list.