Threat of the week from... the University of Alternative Studies

Chip beat me to it regarding the logo. You've been defending the University of Alternative Studies on legal grounds up until now, arguing that because of her disclaimer, and the ambiguity of laws regarding religious and academic titles, but when it's time to apply that logic to the logo problem, you mysteriously veer off course. I'm no lawyer, but even I can see that any decent lawyer would be able to avoid a trademark infringement case between Landmark College and Thompson Rivers University. Like Chip said, there are shared elements, but there are significant differences between the two. They share a common theme--that is, mountains, a sun, a river--but their artistic renderings of them are quite different. I don't think many people would confuse one for the other.

Like Chip said, this is not the case with the UAS and FIU. UAS's logo is nothing more than the mirror image of FIU's with the name around the edge changed and two little flourishes added between the two outer circles. Just like a half-decent lawyer could absolve Landmark and Thompson Rivers, that same lawyer should be able to show just as easily that UAS shamelessly ripped off FIU's logo.

As for the "objectivity" part of your argument: I'm not sure I follow. Do you think any of us here have a personal, subjective grievance with UAS? I certainly don't. I also don't think I'm being any less objective than you. A strict legalistic argument isn't the only valid form of an argument. I think that, given the entirety of the UAS website, and this woman's "practice" website, it's pretty obvious what her intentions are, where she is trying to mislead people, and where she has committed outright trademark infringement. I have no dog in this fight, I'm not emotionally involved. i'm simply someone who went to these websites, weighed the evidence before my eyes, and made a personal judgment. I'm not arguing before a court--though maybe I could obtain an honorary doctorate in law somewhere for $33, perhaps "Doctor" Theresa Kelly could point me in the right direction--so I'm not too concerned with what weasel words this woman tries to make use of in order to avoid prosecution. But those words don't mean she isn't a fraud.

 

Chip, let me clarify for the second time that I am neither apologetic for this person or defending the institution that she runs. I am merely stating what I feel makes it possible and legal for her (or anyone) to do what she does. My opinion would even extend to supporting an ordained religious person offering courses in their area of expertise. Such as, UAS existing to offer trainings in specific psychic or metaphysical subjects. Since there is no regulatory board for this subject, and since she is not accredited, there is nothing preventing her from running this business and calling her "degrees" whatever she wants. If there is no law in SC, MN, or wherever she is to prevent it... it's legal. We here on this board can complain all we want to... and it's understandable since many people here have gone through years of academic rigor to call themselves "Dr."

However, one thing that I will continue to emphasize is that her title is what it is. She is authorized to refer to herself as such because her religion authorizes her to. This is a freedom that we are all awarded in the US. This same freedom allows us to make bad choices... like choosing to pursue an unaccredited degree. And to that, it seems like she is covering as many legal bases as she can so that she can have her institution of learning, call it what she wants, and keep her patrons informed. See this: University of Alternative Studies - Accreditation Disclosure

And the logo... yes, her's is definitely an inverted version of the other school's... but so are the two that I posted. Inverted mountains and two rivers instead of one. With all of the other similarities, critical observation should lend anyone to see that one of those schools (or the logo designer) ripped off the other design. Also note that the Florida International University's logo is completely unoriginal and is not much to be proud of from an artist's perspective. The torch, globe, book, and shield are all reminiscent of symbols found in the Wingdings font. Does anyone remember that one?

Or should I say "mailbox airplane thumbs-up smiley-face?"

 

Welcome to the club! I'm a member of a different one, but I'm thinking about scaling back my superheroing and starting my own religion too. Maybe we can join forces and be super clergy. Only in America!

 

Come on, Hadashi no Gen, I understand your argument for her legal right to call herself a doctor, but you cannot tell me you honestly think the degree of similarity between Thomson Rivers and Landmark is in the same league as FIU and UAS. Do you have Photoshop? GIMP? Do whatever manipulations you like in regards to size, inversion, and color, and you will see the Thomson Rivers and Landmark will not line up. The graphics are similarly themed, but very different, even upon superficial inspection. Now Do one simple operation on UAS' logo: simply flip it. You can superimpose it DIRECTLY upon FIU's. An exact match, as far as the shield, the three elements within it, and the two circles around it. It is not at all the same. The Thomson Rivers/Landmark case is like two songs using the same chords with different executions; the UAS/FIU case is like playing the exact same chords, with the same syncopation, the same tempo, the same melody, with a few different words. Thousands and thousands of songs share the former; few, if any, share the latter, unless the artist wants to get sued. Sorry, I respect your other arguments, but it is not at all the same to claim the two cases of similar logos are equivocal.

 

I don't remember mentioning anything about the legality of the logo... but it would be an infringement of copyright. You're right... and if it means as much to people here as it seems to, I hope that someone chooses to contact FIU or whatever court handles these things. I also hope that it people are willing to exhaust so much energy posting about people/institutions performing business actions that they do not agree with, that they are also using their values to improve the system that allows such businesses to legally exist.

 

Law enforcement officers are expected to show ethical behavior and good judgment.

 

This should be obvious. But if it isn't, then look closely at the globe in the lower left corner of the UAS "shield". It appears to show the continents of North and South America -- except that the continents are flipped left to right. Of course, the continents are oriented correctly on the FIU "shield".

Why would anyone deliberately use an image of a globe in a strange "backwards" orientation? You wouldn't -- unless you started with a correctly oriented globe, and then reversed it.

 

Also note that the UAS motto, "LUX MENTIS SCIENTIA" (= "Science is the light of the mind") just happens to be the motto used by Colby College (in Maine). Since Colby was established in 1813, it seems likely that Colby had it first.

Incidentally, the Colby College seal is legally trademarked, including the word mark "COLBY COLLEGE 1813 LUX MENTIS SCIENTIA". I'm not an IP lawyer, but it seems possible that Colby could have some concerns with other parties using similar wording in a similar context on a college seal. The trademark includes a disclaimer, which notes that Colby does not claim exclusive rights to the words "College" or "1813". This obviously makes sense, but it implies that they do have a claim on the other words, including "Lux Mentis Scientia".

 

Agreed. Thompson Rivers U. and its predecessor school(s) have had other versions of this logo, going back quite a while. Here's an earlier version from from TRU's "University College of the Cariboo" days:

The University College Of The Cariboo logo, Vector Logo of The University College Of The Cariboo brand free download (eps, ai, png, cdr) formats

Obviously, the same theme has been re-worked over the years. Certainly no rip-off from Landmark College.

Johann

 

The "It's legal so we shouldn't have any problem with it" argument made by Hadashi no Gen reminds me of some of the old alt.education.distance skirmishes we would have between various mill operators who would show up trying to defend their program.

Just because it's legal to use sleight-of-hand doesn't mean we should do it. This "school" has directly ripped off their logo, stolen their motto from someone else, and while the proprietor may be legally entitled to describe herself as "Dr." based on a bogus $39 diploma she bought through the mail... it doesn't make it OK for her to use those means (and God knows whatever else we haven't yet stumbled across) to imply to students that she and her "school" have qualifications, education, and/or credentials they do not possess.

I think the "it's legal so we shouldn't object" argument is splitting gnat's hairs. I think an average person reading the site would assume that this is a legitimate "university" that is doing something so bold and innovative that they aren't eligible for accreditation, when the truth appears to be that it's one woman with no academic credentials, representing the quality of the education as equivalent to a typical accredited university, and offering up her own knowledge and experience on the subject matter. It may be legal (though, given the claimed locations, I seriously doubt it) but it definitely isn't honest or non-deceptive.

 

Yikes! We share a connection on Linkedin!?!

 

Chip, I am reading through my statements and no where see anywhere that I alluded to "if it's legal we should have no problem with it." The closest comment that I see is making a comparison between UAS/Kelly and something else, asking "What's the difference?" To question legitimacy.

I all the times I've asked "What's the difference?"... I don't remember anyone ever commenting back with an answer. I'll take another look.

My point of remaining objective in this argument, and even playing the Devil's Advocate at times, has been to hopefully cause discussions of WHY these things are able to happen. I may have said this once already, but if we on this board have problems with how certain institutions and individuals operate... to sit around and complain does nothing. Right? So... the question becomes how do we change what we feel are wrong education and business practices? How do we approach them without taking away freedoms that allow all people to enjoy certain freedoms that exist in the US? For instance... religious freedom, which is an example that I have used too much in this thread. Is it possible to discuss these issues without targeting board members who wish to even out and improve the discussion?

 

It's not the "What's the difference?" thing that made us--or at least, me--think you were restoring to a legal argument, but the fact that the only real legs that your argument has to stand on are when you say that she used a disclaimer. So yes, from a legal standpoint, she probably did cover her butt. But that doesn't mean her intention isn't to pass herself off as a legitimate professor with an "honorary doctorate."

See now why we feel your only defense is a strictly legal one?

 

The problem isn't the supplier. The problem is the marketplace that permits the use of fake credentials like this.

Diploma mills are like cockroaches. You can't get rid of them all. You gotta go after what feeds them. In this case: employers and other non-discerning stakeholders in the purchasers' lives.

We spend a lot of time on this board going after operations like this (or Knightsbridge, MIGS, UNEM, etc.). The come, they go, but the diploma-selling continues. We used to rely on states and other governments, but the Internet made that impossible.

We should go after the buyers: the customers who pay for it and the employers who pay them.

 

Re-posting for emphasis.

 

Totally true. I was making a point of what she is doing is legal. But as some people have said, just because something is legal doesn't mean that it is necessarily right. It just means it is authorized to happen.

She is legally a "doctor" in the ULC. She is legally an ordained minister because her church authorizes her to be one. She is legally educating and counseling people (who make a choice to pay her) on spiritual philosophy as authorized by her ordaining authority. I compared her to my father, who is also an ordained minister... but in the Southern Baptist Church. He was ordained by his church with absolutely no religious education... allowing him to perform all the rights of a legally ordained clergy and to be called "Rev." If he wanted to, he could start a bible college... and it would be tax exempt because it is religious. Comparing him and Kelly, they are really not that different... and ironically both situations are legal here in the US. But for whatever reason I have not seen an argument on degreeinfo.com about other types of unaccredited religious schools that offer degrees taught by non-credentialed professors. For example, Frontier School of the Bible in WY.

UAS is also illegally ripping off another school's logo. Not a very good shady business practice on their part.

 

The religious freedom argument, when it comes to education, is a bullshit argument, and one that most states, except for a few backwards places like Louisiana, have seen right through and taken steps to stamp out.

As I understand it, the states that see the "religious freedom" loophole for the bullshit that it is either prevent religious institutions from issuing degrees at all, or limit religious degrees to things actually related to religion, such as theology or religious studies. Some enterprising schools have tried making the argument that "God created everything, therefore, studying anything is a religious study" but courts have historically not agreed.

I think it's fairly easy to draw a line that doesn't discriminate against religious practices and still prevents people from using an obviously fraudulent $39 degrees for the purpose of holding him or herself out as educated and qualified in the same way as someone with an earned doctorate.

Furthermore, I don't think parapsychology can credibly qualify as a religious degree. That doesn't mean Universal Life Church won't issue such a degree... but it does mean that parapsychology *should* be something viewed and treated in the same realm as psychology, which I don't think much of anyone would argue is religion as opposed to science.

Putting all of that aside, this institution (or more precisely, this "school" that is apparently a one-woman show masquerading as an institution) isn't, as near as I can tell, making any claims that it is a religious institution; on the contrary, they talk about the scientific basis for what they're doing and how they do not advocate any particular religious beliefs or practices, so the argument that the "school" is somehow a religious institution is pretty much bogus.

Finally, one more thing I noticed that gave me a chuckle is how they openly state that they are an online university and therefore have no physical address. Most of the worst fraudulent schools at least have a UPS Store PO box address they claim as their umcampus address, but this place claims to exist nowhere at all. Which gives rise to the question of where the alleged paper copies of the academic records are stored, where they are licensed, etc.

As I say, these are the sorts of things that... the more we dig into them, the more interesting they become.

 

According to the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization, there are actually 20 states, plus Puerto Rico, that "exempt unaccredited religious degree-granting schools from government oversight", to varying degrees. In fact, Oregon itself has a partial religious exemption, even though it is generally regarded as having tough state laws on unaccredited degrees.

ODA also notes that "Most of these allow restricted-use degrees for religious purposes only." An example is Louisiana, which has a generous religious exemption, and which is home to Louisiana Baptist University, a relatively old (est. 1973) and well known unaccredited school. LBU tried offering business degrees under its religious exemption in 1998 and failed badly. The State Board of Regents nearly shut them down, but eventually allowed them to continue operating as long as they issued religious degrees only.

LBU now makes liberal use of the word "Christian" in its programs; for example, the education programs are in the "School of Christian Education", counseling is in the "School of Christian Counseling", communications in the "School of Christian Communications", etc.