Time bomb from 1957: L. Ron Hubbard's fake degrees

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by John Bear, May 31, 2002.

Loading...
  1. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    I am grateful to Pam Martin at California's Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education for this fascinating look at "Dr." Hubbard's fake doctorate and other diploma mill credentials.

    http://www.primenet.com/%7Ecultxpt/ftp/degrees.txt

    And also from Ms. Martin, a big news story from the Los Angeles Mirror-News in 1957 on the fake medical degree bought by the man who was president of one of Hubbard's alma maters, Sequoia University.

    http://www.lisatrust.net/print/la-mirror-diploma-102357.htm

    La plus ça change...
     
  2. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Thanks, Ohnalee!
     
  3. jon porter

    jon porter New Member

    For more about Ron's educational background, see Operation Clambake, at www.xenu.net

    jon
     
  4. Ohnalee

    Ohnalee New Member

    So Rev. Russell, you finally outed me! You can expect your Official G6 Decoder Ring by mail (allow 4 - 6 weeks for delivery). ;)
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    4-6 Weeks? One could have a Ph.D. from Trinity College & University before that. :D

    Actually, I thought Dr. Bear had done so by using your name and that others would make the connection as well. If not, apologies are in order.

    Keep up the excellent work at the BPPVE.
     
  6. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Decoder rings are now available? :D :) :p
     
  7. Mike Wallin

    Mike Wallin New Member

    REV Jesse Jackson

    Is Jesse Jackson a Real Reverend? Is Michael Lerner a real Rabbi?
     
  8. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Re: REV Jesse Jackson

    Yes, though he never finished his M.Div. (the denomination that ordained him--Missionary Baptist--doesn't technically require one). He did some graduate courses at Chicago Theological Seminary (which awarded him an honorary Doctor of Divinity later on), but left to pursue work in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference in 1965, and has been a full-time activist ever since. I think his highest earned degree is his B.A. in Sociology from the University of Illinois.
    If you mean the Michael P. Lerner (b. 1943) of Seattle Seven fame, who now teaches philosophy at (the regionally accredited) Trinity College in Connecticut, I have no idea; he holds no rabbinical school degrees, but he does have two Ph.D.'s from UC-Berkeley (one in philosophy, one in clinical psychology).


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2002
  9. BLD

    BLD New Member

  10. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    "Rev" is a purely religous title. Couldn't anyone that has ever "preached" to a congregation use the tag Rev? Please forgive my ignorance, I'm not knowledgable in this area. I just want to try to understand how it can be said that someone couldn't be a "Rev by any stretch of the imagination". I consider my imagination to be extremely flexible and can come up with many different ways this could be explained.
     
  11. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Bill,
    Perhaps my comment was too strong. What I meant to say was that Jesse is not recognized by any Christian organization as an ordained minister. It is quite possible to start your own church or parachurch organization and call yourself "Reverend".

    Almost every religious organization that Jesse has gotten involved with has tried their best to distance themselves from him - including the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (MLK's group) that Tom refers to.
     
  12. John Bear

    John Bear Senior Member

    Citing Timmerman for 'the truth' on Jesse Jackson is exactly equivalent, I believe, to citing Molly Ivins or Jim Hightower for 'the truth' on Bush and Cheney. Respectable, sincere, the one representing the staunch conservatives, the others the equally staunch liberals.

    John Bear, who spent two years working
    for what was then the 2nd largest public
    interest law firm (after Nader) in Chicago,
    (Business and Professional People in the
    Public Interest), and was then extremely
    impressed by many things done byJackson's
    Operation Breadbasket, a lot of them
    intentionally (and insistently) low or
    no profile.
     
  13. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Hi John,
    One question: Have you read the book? If so, what information is incorrect? If not, I don't think you can make a credible comment about it one way or the other.
     
  14. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    He didn't comment on the book, Barry; he commented on the author. And I don't know about John, but I don't feel like shelling out $21 for an ultraconservative poison-pen biography right now.

    That said: I have been known to watch The O'Reilly Factor, so I know the criticisms of which you speak. I'm not fond of the way the guy runs his nonprofits, but Jesse Jackson is still "Rev." So's Fred Phelps--a much worse offender, to my mind, and unquestionably far less deserving of the "Rev." title.


    Cheers,
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 1, 2002
  15. BLD

    BLD New Member

    How would you know it is a "poison-pen biography" without reading it? Regardless of the author, isn't it possible that the facts are simply stated?

    I agree if all one has to do is name oneself "Reverend" as I stated in another post above. I would say that Phelps and Jackson are two of the same breed, just on different sides of the extremist fence.
     
  16. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    Because it's marketed as one. From the Amazon.com blurb (usually taken from the back cover of the book):

    "Jesse Jackson is a modern day highway robber who uses cries of racism to steal from individuals, corporations, and government, to give to himself, says veteran investigative reporter Kenneth R. Timmerman.

    Until now, however, no one has been brave enough to say it and diligent enough to prove it. But Ken Timmerman has cracked Jackson's machine, found Jackson cronies willing to break ranks, and uncovered a sordid tale of greed, ambition, and corruption from a self-proclaimed minister who has no qualms about poisoning American race relations for personal gain."



    Cheers,
     
  17. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

     
  18. BLD

    BLD New Member

    Tom,
    It could be that I'm just ignorant concerning the term "poison-pen". I thought it meant that the author used unfair criticisms, tactics, etc.... If it just means that the book is written to expose someone, I would agree. In fact, I've just finished reading it -- if this stuff isn't true, Jackson has one heck of a lawsuit to file.
     
  19. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    (IE5 is screwing my posts up, for some reason. Third try, without the quotes...)

    For the record, I'd add that I'm not particularly a fan of Jesse Jackson--I do think he's a less-than-honest human being who exploits racial tension for personal gain. My concern has to do with the fact that dishonest folks on the right get to remain "Rev." no matter what they do--Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, and even Jim Jones (posthumously), for that matter--while folks on the left, honest or dishonest, seem to be in perpetual danger of losing their titles in the public sector, much as Ph.D.'s are now seldom called "Dr." in news reports. It would be a shame, to me, to see "Rev." as a title that automatically gets tied into the religious conservatism movement.


    Cheers,
     
  20. Tom Head

    Tom Head New Member

    The trouble with filing a libel lawsuit as a public figure is that you have to prove malice; only private figures (and limited purpose public figures, which Jesse Jackson, as a former presidential candidate, ain't) get to use the "reckless disregard" standard.

    That said: Yeah, I was using poison pen in the general sense of a biography that, true or false, is written as a lengthy and nasty criticism of someone. Kitty Kelley's biography of Nancy Reagan represents the archetype, but there have been others, both liberal and conservative (there was even one written about Mother Teresa called The Missionary Position). My usual stance on this sort of book is that if there are any criticisms striking and/or provable enough to be relevant to my limited relationship with these public figures, I should investigate them; and if they're not, I should ignore them because it's impossible to keep track of which ones are true and which ones are false. So it's important to know about Whitewater and Lewinsky, less important to know whether Clinton smoked marijuana. That sort of thing. I'm confident that all of the provable stuff has already made it to The O'Reilly Factor, but if I've missed anything, I'm sure I'll catch up with it eventually. Right now I've got a reading list a mile long; very few of the books I'm reading have anything to do with politics, and none of them are critiques of public figures.

    If you'll notice my response to Mike Wallin, all I said about Jesse Jackson was verifiable raw data. I didn't say I liked him; I didn't say I didn't like him; I didn't say whether he deserved the title "Rev." I just said that he was ordained by a denomination that didn't require an M.Div., did some seminary work (but not a degree) at CTS, and that his highest earned degree was a B.A. in Sociology from the University of Illinois. Those are facts, and they're correct. Whether my opinions are also correct isn't really relevant.


    Cheers,
     

Share This Page