Scathing criticism of Columbia Pacific University circa 1997

I came across the following statements regarding CPU, supposedly quoted from Point Reyes Light, December 24, 1997:

One master's-degree student was given credit for "a learning contract describing how he would continue taking dance lessons and watch dance demonstrations in order to improve his skills as a Country Western dancer."

A Ph.D. dissertation written in Spanish was approved by four faculty who cannot speak the language.

One dissertation "had no hypothesis, no data collection, and no statistical analysis. A member of the visiting committee characterized the work as more like a project paper at the college freshman level." The dissertation, The Complete Guide to Glass Collecting, was 61 pages long.

At least nine students who received Ph.D.s in 1994 had been enrolled less than 20 months, four of them less than 12.

[Point Reyes Light, December 24, 1997] see CPU

Cheers,

George

 

One hazard in quoting news articles is that there is no easy way to know if there was a subsequent retraction. I seem to recall there was a partial one in this case.

The Point Reyes Light is the smallest newspaper ever to have won the Pulitzer Prize in the US, for their in depth coverage of matters related to the Synanon organization, then also located in Marin County. At least CPU never (to my knowledge) put rattlesnakes in people's mailboxes.

 

The Point Reyes Light articles are certainly not new. I certainly hope PRL didn't earn a Pulitzer on another story by simply submitting some views by one party without investigating the whole story (as PRL has done on this matter) The allegations raised by the PRL author are sourced from the shaky report done by the CPPVE visiting committee in 1995, but as I understand it, PRL got the allegations directly from CPPVE attorney Asher Rubin.

The CPU site visit committee members (1995) were as follows:
* Dr.L. Lolly Horn, Dean of Academjc Administration, California National University; Ph.D. Administration and Policy, University of California, Los Angeles.
* Dr. Joyce Wilson Hopp, Dean School of Allied Health, Lorna Linda University; Ph.D. Health EduC.ation, University of Southern California. .
* Dr. Allan C. Lachman, Professor of Public Admini~ration, University of La Verne; Ph.D.
Public Administration, University of California, Santa Barbara.
* Dr. Everett Procter, Professor/Faculty Advisor, The Union Institute; Ph.D. Religious
Studies/Classics, University of California, Santa Barbara.
* Dr. Bill Wu, Associate Professor, Northwestern Polytechnic University; Ph.D. Geophysics,
University of Houston.
* Les Axelrod, Council Liaison, Senior Education Specialist, Degree Unit, CPPVE.

Note with interest that one committee member is affiliated with TUI and has a PhD in Religious Studies.

I have published the complete report online, with the names of same committee members. I have also published the response to all allegations by an independent consultant hired by CPU. This same consultant was an author of the Revised Private Postsecondary Education Act of 1989, (implemented in 1991) under which CPU was assessed. Yet, he (the consultant) found 86 "errors of fact" in the committee's report. There was no response to these errors by the CPPVE (which administered licensing, etc.); they simply refused to discuss the matter and shut down CPU.

You will find the exact committee report allegation on the Spanish dissertation at the end of this posting, followed by the independent consultant's response.

The independent consultant's response to the Committee document begins with a statement alluding to the 86 "errors of fact" in the committee report. Here is the beginning of the consultant's opening statement:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Large block Quotation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Columbia Pacific University
Response to the Report of the Visiting Committee
Submitted November 15, 1995

Errors of Fact

Overview
The Visiting Committee Report of Columbia Pacific University of August 23-24, 1995 is grossly in
error in most details, as documented in the 86 errors of fact enumerated below. The Report is
sufficiently in error as to be utterly unreliable as an objective and thorough evaluation of Columbia
Pacific University (CPU). The University attributes most, though not all, of this to the fact that the
visiting committee was not provided ahead of the visit the CPPVE publication, "Site Review
Instrument for A Degree-Granting Institution." The document was only provided at the end of the
visit. The Site Review Instrument would have provided CPU invaluable insight into the issues the
visiting committee was concerned with. Unable to plan the visit, CPU was not able to organize
compliance materials adequately for the Visiting Committee, leading to considerable confusion, delays,
and frustration by the committee in attempting to document CPU's compliance with applicable laws.

Additionally, the Visiting Committee Report begins on pages 2 and 3 with a regrettable focus on an
alleged difference in enrollment between that specified in the application (1,586 students) and that
found on a "listing of currently enrolled students" (514 students). However, the roster of 514 was not a
complete listing of currently enrolled students, just those that had enrolled as of August, 1992, as
specifically requested by the CPPVE staff person at the start of the visit. Please also be aware that the
application was submitted nearly a year ago, in December of 1994, and that the difference between the
1,586 and 514 figures is attributable to graduations, withdrawals, and students who enrolled prior to
August 1992.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
End of Block quotation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

On the Spanish Dissertation

"Error of Fact No. 28
This dissertation was written in Spanish although the institution states that all instruction is in English". ~ --Visiting Committee Report, Page 9, Paragraph Eight

Consultant's Response:

"CPU's graduation and dissertation requirements are fulfilled. The Table of Contents, the Summary, etc., are provided in English. The body of the work was in Spanish because CPU had a faculty mentor who could work with the student in Spanish. CPU policy changed in early 1995. CPU no longer
permits students to complete their dissertations in another language."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Final note from Earon:
Those interested in being informed on the whole matter - all 86 "Errors of Fact" in the committee report can find the report and response at
http://www.altcpualumni.org/chronicles/dex5cpuchronicles.html


Scroll down the page until you come to the following (the links to the pdf files will be found there):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Block quote from altcpualumni.org
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

"A Severely Flawed Report of CPU by a Severely Biased Visiting Committee

August 23-24, 1995 - CPPVE Site Visit Committee renders negative reapproval inspection report of CPU. Out of six committee members 3 are from competing California universities, 1 from a clearly biased distance learning institution; and 1 CPPVE operative acting on orders from superiors (see Dr. Betty Dow's 1999 court testimony on CPPVE's deputy director Shiela Hawkins).

New!! See grossly flawed Original Report of the CPPVE Site Visit Committee. (PDF File - long document - slow download)

November 15, 1995 - Independent Educational Consultant makes complete review of both CPU and the CPPVE Report. Consultant's report states that CPPVE report "is utterly unreliable" ..., "is grossly in error in most details", and outlines 86 "Errors of Fact" in the CPPVE Report

New!! See Original Report from Independent Educational Consultant's Review of CPU and CPPVE's grossly flawed report (PDF File - long document - slow download)."

Cheers,
Earon

 

Columbia Pacific

It will always amaze me that what must have been the worst example of California approved school, because of its closure, should produce so many prominent graduates. A search produces an endless stream of names in prominent positions in and out of academia.

Just think of the quality education one must be getting from the good ones like SCUPS and CCU.

Columbia Pacific was closed because of its success and its lack of lining up the right political friends.

 

Re: Columbia Pacific

I always held CPU in much higher regard--despite some inconsistencies--than either of the other two schools you mention. CPU got canned because it had a very high profile, and because it was a very active participant--advocate, actually--in the unaccredited, DL arena.

 

Re: Columbia Pacific

I don't think that CPU was ever the best or the worst of CA-approved schools. On the high end, there are many places that went on to RA (the CA-approved sector is an incubator of new accredited programs). On the low end are all the theological schools with religious exemptions.

My personal take on CPU is that it was an idealistic effort that managed to develop a pretty good reputation in its early years, but later on it suffered from bad management and seems to have been cutting corners and getting lazy.

That's another argument for accreditation, BTW. It's why the accreditators re-examine all of their members periodically.

I know of absolutely no hard evidence to support that. Nevertheless, I suspect that there's perhaps some truth to it. I think that out of the 2,300 CA-approved schools, at least 250 of which are degree-granting, there are probably numerous schools far worse. Which raises the question of why the state chose to take on CPU.

One possibility is that the BPPVE wanted to send a message, and CPU was the most prominent offender. So by tackling CPU, the state could give warning to the rest of them.

And another possibility is that the CPU owners managed to piss off some state legislators or something. Given their rather laissez-faire policies overall, I wonder if the state would have commenced a costly legal campaign involving multiple trials and appeals, if they were not under political pressure of some sort.

Of course, the rather unpalatable implication of that (frankly speculative) hypothesis is that the BPPVE, absent political pressure, lacks the will and/or the means to tackle substandard schools. And that suggests that far from being the oppressive juggernaut that Earon suggests, that the BPPVE needs additional legal resources and funding in order to effectively do their job when politicians aren't leaning on them.

 

I'm pretty much in agreement with Bill Dayson on most of his points. The CPPVE signed over the closure of CPU in late 1996. The BPPVE (the next generation of the CPPVE brought into being by new legislation) had no choice but to continue with the process.

Despite speculatory evidence to indicate that CPU got a bad deal, there is also another point that Bill has made - that bad management most likely played a role. I would say that lack of future vision left CPU vulnerable to an attack. I believe CPU got far too comfortable under the California system, and should have opened up another - accreditable - center in another state, as SCUPS did with NCU. Prior to the implementation of the 1989 revised act (implemented in 1991) CPU was in full compliance with the existing regulations. In fact, a 1991 site visit committee also gave CPU a very high passing grade (the 1991 site visit report is also to be found at www.altcpualumni.org). I think CPU saw the problems on the horizon, but couldn't manoeuver themselves strategically to avoid the collision with the CPPVE. With the new Act the CPPVE had been issuing a stream of regularly changing regulations which kept CPU's people in a state of disorientation. And court evidence did indeed produce evidence from Dr. Betty Dowd (who worked for the CPPVE) that the two people at the top of the CPPVE hierarchy were aching to get CPU and would get CPU during the next site visit (thereby implying that CPU had indeed made enemies in the education system). That evidence is also available at www.altcpualumni.org.
Earon

Bill writes, in relevant part:
"My personal take on CPU is that it was an idealistic effort that managed to develop a pretty good reputation in its early years, but later on it suffered from bad management and seems to have been cutting corners and getting lazy.

That's another argument for accreditation, BTW. It's why the accreditators re-examine all of their members periodically....

... there are probably numerous schools far worse. Which raises the question of why the state chose to take on CPU.

One possibility is that the BPPVE wanted to send a message, and CPU was the most prominent offender. So by tackling CPU, the state could give warning to the rest of them.

And another possibility is that the CPU owners managed to piss off some state legislators or something..."

 

CPU's biggest enemy in California has been state attorney Asher Rubin.

As it happens, Bruce Francis (then Chancellor of Capella) and I were in the courtroom as observers in Superior Court in Marin County 4 or 5 years ago, for a scheduled session for on one of CPU's motions to overturn a part of the judgment against them.

When Rubin asked for a postponement, the judge almost literally threw the book at him. She delivered an extremely hostile lecture, accusing him of distorting justice again, of being ill prepared again, of failing to carry out the provisions of his instructions from a prior session, on and on, and all in all delivered a satisfying (if only temporarily) victory to CPU. I remember Dr. Francis and I being quite astonished by the way Mr. Rubin conducted himself.

 

Yes, I remember John reporting this courtroom incident in February of 1998. I also remember my excitement peaking, that things looked pretty good for CPU (considering the judge's treatment of Rubin). Unfortunately, the trend did not continue and CPU lost miserably in most of its attempts at appeals over the next 2 1/2 years. Rubin must have rebounded. I discovered later that 3 of four appeals judges that ruled against CPU were themselves former district attorneys, and had worked out of the same local area as district attorney Rubin. The fourth judge ruled for CPU's side. He was not a former district attoirney, and had actually had a distinguished law career prior to becoming an appeals court judge.

 

On one end of the CPU story is a fact: the courts found against the school repeatedly, and it is no longer legally permitted to operate in the State of California.

On the other end of the story is a question: given the probability that CPU was not the worst school in the CA-approved universe, what was the motivation for the state to sue to close it?

I find Earon's conspiracy theory unconvincing. (But then I would, wouldn't I? I used to work in a Bay Area District Attorney's office myself.) I don't believe that local judges are corrupt, as Earon seems to be suggesting. But I also know that from time to time cases are given higher priority because of press or political attention.

So my instinct is to accept that valid grounds existed to shut CPU down, but to suspect that equal or greater grounds probably exist to shut down an undetermined number of additional CA-approved schools, if the state had the will to pursue cases against them as aggressively as it pursued the case against CPU.

BTW, a Deputy State Attorney General is not the same thing as a District Attorney.

 

Bill,
Have you ever read the documents I posted on the CPU matters?

I've never stated here that there was a conspiracy to shut down CPU. That is your choice of word, not mine. I've purposely avoided the word "conspiracy" to avoid responses such as you've made here. Nor have I suggested that 'all' who have ever worked as district attorneys (or whatever the correct term is in California) would have the same opinion as Asher Rubin.

I have, however, posted related original documents online - primary sources. These documents include court records, a statement by the Governor saying why he was closing down the CPPVE, records of site visits (both good and bad), approval certificates, etc.

All of these documents together cast some doubt on the legitimacy of the whole proceedings against CPU, from the 1995 site visit to the final rulings against CPU in 2000.

Those records also include sworn testimony from a high level whistle-blowing employee from CPPVE stating she was told by the deputy director of CPPVE, Shiela Hawkins, that she didn't like CPU and was out to close them down, and that CPU wouldn't survive the next site visit. I don't know if that indicates a conspiracy, but when such evidence is on the public record, it certainly carries with it some suspicion about the CPPVE and its behaviors.

Those who like to investigate beyond the sphere of speculation can find the documents online at www.altcpualumni.org.

Earon

 

These allegations were repeated in a story in The Virgin Islands Daily News, 24 April 2003, about a controversy over Police Commissioner Elton Lewis, who has a Columbia Pacific University degree. The story also quotes Dr Bear: http://www.virginislandsdailynews.com/index.pl/article_home?id=1557414

 

The BPPVE found that CPU was not in compliance with the law. An Administrative Law Judge found that CPU was not in compliance with the law. A Superior Court Judge found that CPU was not in compliance with the law. CPU elected not to appeal these decisions. All believed CPU should be closed. All of these decisions were made after reviewing the report by the CPU consultant.

What is left to discuss?