Federal Court rules against Contreras?

Isn't that up to the courts to decide?

Frankly, my layman's opinion is that you might be right about the Oregon law's constitutionality. But that's not what the e-mail that started this thread was about.

You don't live in Oregon, so it isn't your government.

If you have a bug up your butt about Taft being unrecognized in Oregon, pull the bug out and contact Contreras about what you need to do to get it recognized. Other CA-approved schools have done it, so it clearly isn't impossible.

If you think that the Oregon statute is unconstitutional, challenge it in court and let the courts decide.

If are projecting your dislike for the Oregon law onto Contreras personally, you might reflect on what you are doing.

 

A California trade school association was considering challenging the constitutionally of the law. Representatives of the Attorney General’s office told them they believed the statute would not be upheld. The association was warned that if the statute was held unconstitutional, it would simply be amended and the matter would be continually re-litigated.

In my humble legal opinion, this is not a close case. The state could probably require a holder of an unaccredited degree to disclose this fact in a business setting, but the current statute is overbroad.

 

Just as a clarification: Taft is DETC-accredited, and its degrees are thus recognized in Oregon.

 

William Howard Taft University has never been on the Oregon blacklist and won't be in the future. As such, Taft is probably a beneficiary of the Oregon law. But it still doesn’t make it right.

 

David Boyd,

I forget whether you are an attorney; if memory serves, you are.

In any event, I also have reservations that the Oregon law may be an overbroad exercise of police power, being a prior restraint on free speech, both commercial and potentially political, and a restraint on freedom of association.

I wonder, though, if you have run across any journal articles on point? I haven't found any case law and we KNOW what the statute says!

 

David Boyd,

Oh, yes, here you are. Member of the California Bar since 1983. Hunh! That's the year I entered law school.

I've been thinking of taking the CA attorney's exam but I understand it is a bear.

 

Nosborne:

Here is the Florida law that was found to be unconstitutional in Strang v. Satz (884 F Supp 504)

(1) No person in the state may claim, either orally or in writing, to possess an academic degree, as defined in section 246.021, or the title associated with said degree, unless the person has, in fact, been awarded said degree from an institution that is:

(a) Accredited by a regional or professional accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Council on Postsecondary Education;

(b) Provided, operated, and supported by a state government or any of its political [*507] subdivisions or by the Federal Government;

(c) A school, institute, college or university chartered outside the United States, the academic degree from which has been validated by an accrediting agency approved by the United States Department of Education as equivalent to a baccalaureate or postbaccalaureate degree conferred by a regionally accredited college or university in the United States;

(d) Licensed by the State Board of Independent Colleges and Universities pursuant to ss. 246.011-246.151 or exempt from licensure pursuant to s. 246.085; or

(e) A religious seminary, institute, college or university which offers only educational programs that prepare students for a religious vocation, career, occupation, profession, or lifework, and the nomenclature of whose certificates, diplomas, or degrees clearly identifies [**5] the religious character of the educational program.

(2) No person awarded a doctorate degree from an institution not listed in subsection (1) shall claim in the state, either orally or in writing, the title "Dr." before the person's name or any mark, appellation, or series of letters, numbers or words, such as, but not limited to, "Ph.D," "Ed.D," "D.N.," or "D.Th," which signifies, purports, or is generally taken to signify satisfactory completion of the requirements of a doctorate degree, after the person's name.

(3)(a) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (2) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(b) In addition to any penalty imposed under paragraph (a), a violator shall be subject to any other penalty provided by law, including, but not limited to, suspension or revocation of the violator's license or certification to practice an occupation or profession.

 

Okay, I just read the decision. Boy! The District Court sure doesn't like unaccredited PhDs!

It looks to me like all the Florida legislature needs to do is amend their statute to require the user of an unaccredited title to include a disclaimer, something like, "Degree awarded by Generic & Unaccredited University, an unrecognized institution" or something like that.

Generic and Unaccredited, by the way, is the COURT'S nickname for Pacific Western, not mine.

 

So if I get two doctorates, one of which is accredited and one of which isn't, can I call myself D. Janko, or is it R. Janko? But then, if #1, people will think I went to a German university (God forbid), and if #2, they'll think I'm a rabbi (which is nicer than being thought an LCMS pastor, but equally untrue). I think I'll just stay out of Florida entirely.

 

No spring break for you college boy.

 

I hope that when the degreeinfo glossary of DL terms is published that the term "Bernestench" receives proper attribution. Good one Alan!

Jack

 

For me, it conjured up an image of badly burnt toast.

 

Thanks for the information, as far as modifying the law when the courts find a problem in the way it was written, that sounds like a very good thing to me.

For example, the ruling on the Florida law, the court even suggested that the intent of the law was good and just. It is too bad that the Florida Legislature hasn't updated the law so that it could be enforced. This does confuse me though about the Oregon story, I didn't think that the Attorney General's office was able to amend laws or to even make the legislature amend laws.