KWU, From Diploma Mill to unaccredited

Oregon Settles Federal Lawsuit

Ok, at this moment I be familiar with what occur.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20041221005728&newsLang=en

December 21, 2004 07:03 PM US Eastern Timezone

Oregon Settles Federal Lawsuit Filed by Kennedy-Western University; State Officials Will Seek Changes to State Law Regulating the Use of Degrees from Unaccredited Universities

SALEM, Ore.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 21, 2004--Attorney General Hardy Myers and Kennedy-Western University (KWU) President Paul Saltman today announced that they have reached an out-of-court settlement of the University's Federal District Court lawsuit against Myers and Alan Contreras, Administrator of the Oregon Student Assistance Commission's Office of Degree Authorization (ODA).

KWU filed suit in July 2004 on behalf of three Oregon graduates to challenge a state law that makes it unlawful for a person to represent that he or she has a degree if that degree was granted by an unaccredited university. The lawsuit claimed that the Oregon law violated KWU graduates' constitutional rights by unreasonably restricting their ability to use a lawfully obtained academic credential. Under the settlement agreement, Myers and Contreras agreed that the State will not enforce this statute as long as KWU degree holders disclose their school's non-accredited status when representing their academic achievement.
The settlement does not require any Oregon employer to accept unaccredited degrees as valid credentials or change the requirements for state employment, professional licensure, college admission or other areas for which a degree from an accredited school is required. Degree holders who fail to disclose that their degrees are from unaccredited schools are still subject to civil and criminal penalties.

In addition, the settlement agreement provides that the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization and Attorney General Myers will make a good faith effort to secure an amendment of the statute during the State's next legislative session that would decriminalize the use of a non-accredited degree as long as degree holders disclose their schools' non-accredited status when stating their credentials for business or professional purposes.

According to the terms of the settlement agreement, all issues in the lawsuit will be resolved, and the lawsuit will be dismissed, once the contemplated legislation is passed. If the legislation is not enacted by the end of the 2007 legislative session, the lawsuit will move forward.

Oregon officials are also obligated under the settlement agreement to refrain from characterizing KWU as a diploma mill or substandard school on the Office of Degree Authorization website or elsewhere. The Attorney General's office also agreed to provide ODA personnel with a training session on defamation law.

"We believe that this agreement is fair and reasonable," stated Attorney General Myers. "It strikes a proper balance between protecting the rights of graduates and ensuring appropriate public disclosure."

"We are pleased that the State recognizes the need for changes to its regulations," stated KWU's Saltman. "We look forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation."

KWU is authorized by the State of Wyoming to offer academic degrees at the Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral level. KWU delivers its programs through a combination of online learning and directed study.

 

Hmm.

I wonder how ODA really views this settlement. If Oregon does as it says it will do, KWU has essentially won what it was after.

I also wonder if KWU will be permitted to offer its programs to residents of Oregon. Sounds like it, anyway.

I hope Mr. Contreras will bring us up to date.

This arrangement will answer my question about experienced California lawyers applying to the Oregon State Bar.

 

An important announcement from Degreeboard:

December 21, 2004 07:03 PM US Eastern Timezone

Oregon Settles Federal Lawsuit Filed by Kennedy-Western University; State Officials Will Seek Changes to State Law Regulating the Use of Degrees from Unaccredited Universities

SALEM, Ore.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec. 21, 2004--Attorney General Hardy Myers and Kennedy-Western University (KWU) President Paul Saltman today announced that they have reached an out-of-court settlement of the University's Federal District Court lawsuit against Myers and Alan Contreras, Administrator of the Oregon Student Assistance Commission's Office of Degree Authorization (ODA).


KWU filed suit in July 2004 on behalf of three Oregon graduates to challenge a state law that makes it unlawful for a person to represent that he or she has a degree if that degree was granted by an unaccredited university. The lawsuit claimed that the Oregon law violated KWU graduates' constitutional rights by unreasonably restricting their ability to use a lawfully obtained academic credential. Under the settlement agreement, Myers and Contreras agreed that the State will not enforce this statute as long as KWU degree holders disclose their school's non-accredited status when representing their academic achievement.

The settlement does not require any Oregon employer to accept unaccredited degrees as valid credentials or change the requirements for state employment, professional licensure, college admission or other areas for which a degree from an accredited school is required. Degree holders who fail to disclose that their degrees are from unaccredited schools are still subject to civil and criminal penalties.

In addition, the settlement agreement provides that the Oregon Office of Degree Authorization and Attorney General Myers will make a good faith effort to secure an amendment of the statute during the State's next legislative session that would decriminalize the use of a non-accredited degree as long as degree holders disclose their schools' non-accredited status when stating their credentials for business or professional purposes.

According to the terms of the settlement agreement, all issues in the lawsuit will be resolved, and the lawsuit will be dismissed, once the contemplated legislation is passed. If the legislation is not enacted by the end of the 2007 legislative session, the lawsuit will move forward.

Oregon officials are also obligated under the settlement agreement to refrain from characterizing KWU as a diploma mill or substandard school on the Office of Degree Authorization website or elsewhere. The Attorney General's office also agreed to provide ODA personnel with a training session on defamation law.

"We believe that this agreement is fair and reasonable," stated Attorney General Myers. "It strikes a proper balance between protecting the rights of graduates and ensuring appropriate public disclosure."

"We are pleased that the State recognizes the need for changes to its regulations," stated KWU's Saltman. "We look forward to working with the Oregon Attorney General to develop the new legislation."

KWU is authorized by the State of Wyoming to offer academic degrees at the Bachelors, Masters and Doctoral level. KWU delivers its programs through a combination of online learning and directed study.

 

Deja vu all over again.

Hi Neil:

Since you're here, would you mind pointing out on the other board that RA or no way is not universally held here--as you yourself know full well from reading, at minimum, posts by me, Jimmy, Russell, and the many DETC-ers hereabouts.

While it's gratifying to perpetuate a myth, I know you know better.

You got a balanced response from me on your dissertation (negative on choice of schools, with Knightsbridge's process still an improvement on your earlier choice, but quite positive on the content and academic quality of the dissertation itself, which you were kind enough to send to me).

Janko

______________________________________

My apologies for this being off the topic of the thread. Please return to the discussion at hand. J.

 

Re: Oregon Settles Federal Lawsuit

I'm curious about you. You suddenly appear, claim to reside in the Dominican Republic or someplace, but post about nothing but Oregon on this and several other discussion boards.

Judging from its content and format, I'd guess that this is probably a release issued by K-W.

Since when do people have a constitutional right to use a lawfully obtained academic credential?

Many degree mills lawfully grant totally legal degrees that neverthelss have no academic meaning from jurisdictions where "universities" only need to have a business license. But that doesn't mean that individuals have the constitutional right to freely use those degrees in every American jurisdiction. If that were the case, then bar admission requirements and physician licensing laws would go right out the window, since they restrict the use of lawfully granted degrees.

It's difficult for me to believe that Oregon would cave in on that easily defensible issue.

I always thought that Oregon ws most vulnerable on the issue of restricting "using" a degree. That's extremely vague and arguably an overbroad restriction on free speech.

But this settlement, as represented here, still restricts the speech of individuals with non-accredited degrees, by requiring them to disclose that their degrees aren't accredited, whenever the degrees are 'used'. I wonder, if Oregon was going to cave in as this press release suggests they did, why they didn't cave at the point where they were actually vulnerable?

And I'd also be interested to know how this applies to advertising and promotional materials, and to the written use of credentials in published faculty listings and corporate bios.

Where the current system simply made any mention of K-W and similar degrees illegal, the settlement seems to stipulate that the ODA overlook the listing of a K-W degree, so long as it's clearly marked as non-accredited.

"Joe Blow, Ph.D. Kennedy Western U. (not-accredited)", or "Joe Blow, Ph.D. (not-accredited)"?

I'd be interested to read any new legislation and rules that come out of this, to see how they handle that point. What exactly does "disclosure" mean, in real life practice? What does a professional(?) with an iffy degree have to do, precisely, to stay clear of the risk of prosecution?

The idea that the state can still restrict the use of lawfully granted degrees in regulated professions directly contradicts the theory that individuals have some kind of a constitutional right to use their lawfully granted degrees.

That may or may not conform to the original legislative intent, protecting the people of Oregon from misleading and potentially fraudulent educational claims. A great deal depends on whether or not the general public has some understanding of what disclosures of "not accredited" actually imply.

And that presumes that the public disclosures aren't buried in small print footnotes or in an impenetrable page full of dense rhetoric about how accreditation is voluntary, controversial and ultimately meaningless.

In other words, the court is not overturning the existing law. It remains illegal to use non-accredited degrees in Oregon, even if disclosure is made. But the ODA agrees not to enforce the law or to seek a prosecution so long as proper disclosure (whatever that means) is made. Considering that the law was only a misdemeanor, was pretty low on the state attorney general's enforcment calendar and was unlikely to be criminally prosecuted anyway, I wonder how dramatic the ODA's concession really was.

But this is all about marketing perceptions, ultimately, so K-W wins on that score.

K-W keeps its options open, threatening to resume its efforts to overturn the law if the law isn't amended to its liking by the legislature within two years.

That little slap is one of the things that suggests to me that this is a K-W press release.

But it does suggest to me that K-W believed that the "illegal in Oregon" thing was impacting their sales. Once again, this is all about marketing.

There's a thought that really inspires confidence, K-W authoring new Oregon legislation intended to protect Oregonians against misleading and potentialy fraudulent educational claims.

Hopefully that's just an expression of what K-W would like to do. And I hope that the Oregon legislators who wrote and then passed the original legislation retain their interest in the matter.

It would be enlightening to hear the other side's spin on what happened.

 

ODA's Agreement with K-WU

I think this outcome is great. I've been critical of the way the ODA has approached what I feel is a good cause: dealing with organizations that aren't really universities issuing diplomas and degrees. But they've been ham-handed about it, and really need to get their message together.

That said, there is one outstanding outcome to this: requiring those using unaccredited degrees for business purposes to reveal such. Man, that's terrific! My doctoral research clearly showed that employers' acceptance of degrees from unaccredited schools (meaning, schools approved/licensed/authorized/etc. in other ways besides recognized accreditors and the equivalent) drops significantly if/when the employers find out about the real nature of the school.

Can you imagine employers' reactions to resumes containing such a disclosure?

The ODA calling Kennedy-Western a diploma mill--or implying the same--wasn't necessary and, now we see, defensible. But the disclosure requirement? I'd love to see that implemented across the land. It would go a long way to eliminating the demand that feeds diploma mills and other substandard schools.

 

Re: ODA's Agreement with K-WU

Rich Douglas, cheering on Kennedy-Western?

It is?

What makes you think that Oregon employers and clients are going to learn the real nature of any of these schools?

If use of non-accredited degrees is illegal until the schools issuing them are checked out, then ignorance about accreditation issues out there in the community isn't really a problem. But if using non-accredited degrees is OK so long as a disclosure is made, then the public is going to have to be able to understand and evaluate the disclosures and all the issues that they raise.

What kind of disclosures are people apt to get, in real life? An admission that a degree isn't accredited, buried in a confusing apologia that tries to convince people that accreditation was unnecessary or inappropriate or unavailable? People with non-accredited degrees will almost certainly try to sugar coat it by creating confusion.

And that assumes that disclosures are really made. It will be awfully tempting for people to just omit them entirely, and then claim that they were made verbally or something if a challenge ever arises.

Do we really know that?

Kennedy-Western's attack on the Oregon law is a blow struck in the battle against misleading academic credentials?

All I see here is a state attorney doing something kind of dumb to clear a case off his court calendar without having to go to court, and as a result everything getting a bit more murky and confused.

 

JUSTICIA NON EST NEGANDA NON DIFFERENDA

 

justitia, not justicia

Fr. Latin Teacher (im Rücktritt)

 

I'm curious how many ways people will say "not accredited".

My point is that this is a negative statement that could incite the prejudices of those who may not be informed in the nuances of accreditation. Why must the negative be stressed? It seems to me that a graduate from a school that is approved by the ODA could indicate that the school was "OR State Approved". It seems just as logical to indicate what the degree IS rather than what it IS NOT. I believe a KWU graduate could indicate "WY State Licensed" after their degree and be compliant with this agreement just as a PCU graduate could indicate "CA State Approved" after their degree.

If the article presented is a factual representation of the agreement between Oregon/KWU it would appear as if KWU won ...by forcing changes to ODA procedures and forcing the ODA to plead for legislative changes in the future.

 

Kirkland raises an interesting point that I was wondering. Will the ODA allow the lying and nearly fraudulent (if not blantantly fraudulent) statement that KWU is Wyoming state approved to replace the truthful not-accredited?

 

I have rather an awful idea...suppose being accredited by a DoE recognized accreditor allowed an institution to place a federal "trademark" on its diplomas? Couple that with a "public service" ad campaign and the word will get out in simple easily understood terms...

Then make it a federal felony to forge or miappropriate or imitate that mark.

Just an idea, that's all.

 

Re: Re: ODA's Agreement with K-WU

Of course not. That's ridiculous.

Do not use caricatures. Look at the outcome, not the parties involved. I don't know how it will be implemented, or to what degree of success. But if people were required to disclose that their degrees were from unaccredited schools, it would go a long way in defeating the main draw of diploma mills: that they serve to fool people. It would hurt the few legitimate unaccredited schools, unfortunately.

I can't imagine K-WU would be too happy if their customers were required to reveal the unaccredited status of K-WU when listing their degrees.

How will all of this play out in the real world? I don't know. But labeling K-WU a diploma mill didn't do a lot in the real world, either.

 

Re: Re: Re: ODA's Agreement with K-WU

True but it tickled me pink*.



*"tickle me pink" that's a strange saying. I would guess that it came from tickling a baby and it laughing until it turned pink. Okay the truth is that maybe I didn't really giggle to the point of turning pink on this one.

 

Re: Re: Re: ODA's Agreement with K-WU

If it's illegal to use non-accredited degrees unless they are approved by the ODA, then how are consumers being fooled by them?

And how does allowing the use of these degrees provided some undefined disclosure accompanies the use make things even less confusing than not using them at all?

Keep in mind that the disclosure, assuming one is even made, would be accompanied in many cases by all kinds of rhetoric designed to sell the non-accredited school and to downplay the importance of accreditation.

If a large part of the problem here is public ignorance about accreditation, then how does handing them the responsibility to interpret these disclaimers and all the accompanying noise clarify matters?

Yes, there's that too. Good non-accredited schools would be put into the same boat as the mills: a required non-accredited disclaimer plus a sales pitch (except that it's true in the good school's case).

It's a hell of a lot better than their customers being forbidden to use the degrees at all.

It seems to me that if the academic achievement symbolized by a school's degrees don't fall within the scope of what one expects from a university degree, then the institution is seriously substandard and the use of 'diploma mill' is probably justified.

I'm not going to get drawn into an argument about K-W's academics. But apparently the ODA felt that it was credibly established that the school is substandard. If that's the case, then it's no doubt useful to Oregonians to tell them so.

 

I've mostly stayed out of this brouhaha.

Just two things:

In my conversations with Alan Contreras (concerning an unaccredited school of which I approve heartily) he was cordial and constructive in everything he had to say.

Also, if I had a degree from an unaccredited school (which I do not), I would have no problem labeling it as such in any context where specifying accredited/unaccredited is required or appropriate. Nor would I bother to engage in "selling" it.

[Bill Grover's sig line is a good example, BTW.]

 

KWU is not Approved by Wyoming (nor is there any certification by the State to that effect) so in your example it would be incorrect, possibly blatantly fraudulent, for someone to indicate otherwise. Certainly not in keeping with the agreement as it has been presented.

 

No longer violate the rights of alumni

This is a modest information concerning the arrangement, which is post in the KWU electronic page.

In addition, some information of the Legal Representative of KWU, Robert A. Shlachter, JD, of the Portland law firm Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter.


The settlement agreement includes Oregon's acknowledgment that its law regulating non-accredited universities in the state is unconstitutional and must be revised such that it will no longer violate the rights of alumni by denying them their rights to due process, freedom of speech and interstate commerce.

http://www.kw.edu/news_sub6.asp?active=media

 

Odd. I've never heard of a lawyer being quoted as "So-and-so, J.D." I wonder whose idea that was?

Trivial question, of course. It just strikes me as...odd.

 

How the Kennedy-Western case came out

I regret that I have not had time to comment on this case until now. Here is how the case was settled, which will, I suspect, become the national norm over time.

Kennedy-Western asserted that their degree holders had a First Amendment right to say that they own a KWU degree, which, after all, is true. Our attorney thought they had a strong case on this point.

Oregon asserted that our duty to protect the public allowed us to require that any use of an unaccredited degree be disclosed, and that failure to disclose could be criminalized on public protection grounds. KWU's attorney thought we had a strong case on that issue.

We therefore settled the case within that structural paradigm, which applies only to private-sector use of degrees in unlicensed professions, since Oregon requires accreditation for public-sector and licensed uses, which KWU agreed we have the right to do.

As a result, any KWU degree holder may use the degree in private-sector work in Oregon provided that a disclaimer stating that the degree is unaccredited AND unapproved by ODA be appended to any written use of the degree in the state, including resumes, letterhead, web sites etc.

We view this situation as a net gain from the point of view of enforcement, since failure to disclose is now a separate violation for KWU users (which we expect the legislature to adopt for all such degrees this spring) whether or not ODA happens to discover the violation. There is also a very substantial public awareness gain for ODA, because in theory there will be people revealing that their degrees are unaccredited or risking sanctions.

As far as we know, KWU feels pretty good about the settlement because they obtained the right of their users to claim degrees without a risk of criminal violation. We also agreed to not call them a diploma mill on our web site. This is something of a freebie, since we are revising our use of that term this spring anyway.

From my point of view, they slapped us in the face while we kicked them in the kneecap. Justice being imperfect, that's about the way it ended. It will be a few years before we really know what the outcome is, in terms of how the public views degrees.