Oregon / KWU settlement

Two questions:

1. What is the source of this text?

2. In what sense is it 'official'?

My guess is that this is a Kennedy-Western press release. What I would like to see is the actual text of any stipulated judgement or other court order emerging from this case.

 

I'm extremely surprised as well. It's obviously a tremendous victory for degree mills in general (whatever one happens to think about K-W in particular).

It's a clear indication that the Oregon state attorney's office is not willing to litigate academic credential cases, which makes any future enforcement action by the ODA toothless.

The suggestion that the Oregon statutes be rewritten within two years and that K-W will help write the new Oregon degree-standards legislation are just nails in the coffin.

I agree. The ODA will probably stop enforcing the degree-use law entirely, and will just go back to approving in-state Oregon degree-granting schools like the BPPVE does.

The Oregon experiment is dead, or very near so.

Of course, all of this assumes that the press-release that everyone is posting and reposting presents the settlement accurately, which might not be true at all.

 

I doubt seriously if the state is going to use Webster's. It is much more likely they will adopt legislation defining what is and is not recognized as accreditation. Gee, I wonder what they'll use as a criterion? Could it be USDoE and/or CHEA recognition?

 

LOL

I'm still trying to figure out why anyone would waste their time, money and effort to get an unaccredited degree.

 

Because it doesn't TAKE much time, effort or money?

 

I agree, but as I stated, this is an example of the confusion that I think will result from those who are unfamiliar with the particulars of this field. Most people will reach for a dictionary to define a term then act accordingly. The ODA will have a tough time engineering and prosecuting that behavior. Maybe the ODA can have Webster's rewritten ...or put in on a list of unapproved sources!

 

In addition, do not disregard that ODA need some urgent legal advice to re write the administrative rules.

Because the citizens that imposed the pass administrative rules,(ODA) apparently, do not know about rights and LAWS.

Also, this people do not like to give to the American citizens a Due Process.

That’s why “The Attorney General's office also agreed to provide ODA personnel with a training session on defamation law.”

- - - - -This is in fact a Blow!

 

Bill,

Very well stated, I'm in agreement with your remarks.

But those who wish to find loop holes will continue deception.

While they can state U in their resumes they can State Licensed, Approved - or Equivalent to Accredited etc.

What about foreign degrees - if such can be called degrees
SRU, Concordia, Robertstown, etc.

Learner

 

Maybe one way to think of the settlement is that it more narrowly tailors what amounted to a prior restrain on commercial speech in order to achieve Oregon's legitimate goals without unnecessarily restricting that speech?

 

I have the same concern. Unless exact wording is in the legal code, i.e., "not-accredited" or "unaccredited", then people will naturally try to use euphemisms.

 

From my understanding all written references to a degree will have to include the statement "unaccredited and lacks ODA approval". I have not seen any documentation on this, but that is what I have heard.

Although I am sure that is not what KWU ultimate goal would have been, I would bet that it is much more than they expected. I think the Oregon AG folded without calling.

 

The statutory labeling restrictions will need to be specific in order to encompass all forms of communication e.g. CVs, resumes, letters, business cards, advertising, biographies, articles, perhaps even conversations such as interviews ... essentially every form of communication where one would present their academic background. Once that level of specificity is written into the code, you can only imagine the level of govt. infrastructure that would be needed to effectively enforce it. I perceive this will be fiscally infeasible.

 

A lot of wind has gone out of the ODA sails with this agreement which in effect had the AG overruling the ODA administrator's interpretation of the statutes and changing interim policy. This could also open the gates for other actions by other affected parties. It might be a little while before this gets sorted out and there is some doubt in my mind as to whom will be representing the ODA position in the future.

 

This is all with the idea that the non-un degreed people are going to abide by this rule, exactly whatever maybe required by them to state on their resume and/or app for employment (and others have already eluded to how many can loop-hole). I'm willing to bet the majority will do nothing to put negative ink on paper. It seems the main point to get a degree of this nature was to fool people, to at least some extent, that it's a real degree, meaning it's RA = no "Scarlet 'U'". So, they will say nothing... and leave it up to HR to do their homework and slip by that way. In my experience as a working professional for 21 years to-date, I've seen slop from HR departments, (though not often) and mostly in the private sector at that, where the money is bigger, thus why the risks are taken by some. I still think that sooner or later they will be caught, exposed, etc... Maybe not as dramatically as the smoking hot young Wal-Mart heiress. But still in my opinion it’s still a waste of time, money and effort (even if a small amount of all 3). Most especially if they get caught with a bunk degree in their career industry, their name is mud, depending on how old they are, the potential of a career change may not be such an easy option if at all. And the bad press of being exposed an booted may have a way of following them around forever as far as any career opposed to a job goes for all we know. --Q

 

This is not as bad as it sounds. I'm not saying that it is not a problem but that if the academic frauds don't follow the rules and don't signify that their degree is "not-accredited" then when it is discovered the employer will be free to fire them. The problem in states without laws like this is that the fired employee can turn around and sue the employer for wrongful termination. If the employee broke the law on their original job application then their chance of winning or even filing such a lawsuit goes to nil.

It is good because it makes it legally clear who is in the wrong. It would make it clear that the academic fraud was indeed in the wrong.

 

I just visited the ODA web site and have seen the changes that they made to KWU write-up.

"Kennedy-Western University Wyoming, also California Unaccredited. Degrees do not meet requirements for employment by State of Oregon or for work in any profession licensed by the State of Oregon for which a degree is required. "

To me it reads substandard in other words.

No changes made to other similar entities.

Learner

 

Oregon has pioneered many new laws, including some of the early no-fault and one of the first Real Estate Licensing laws in the country. My guess is that the legislature will rewrite the law to make it as bullet-proof as possible, then ODA and/or the AG office will test it in court. Think of this current K-W thing as a "voyage of discovery."

 

Hi all,

This is my first post...

Has something changed to allow them to offer degrees in California? I am interested in learning more about the background of this settlement. I am more than a bit interested because we just filed CAN-SPAM lawsuit in Northern California against Kennedy-Western University for illegal spam. We are going to be putting up a web page about the suit with some background about KWU so that it is easy for the press to understand the type and/or character of business services KWU is advertising in their spam.

Joe

 

To my knowledge, nothing's changed for K-WU in California. They continue to operate in that state, but do not offer their degrees to students living in that state. (Presumably to avoid trouble with the law.)