KVBC story on UCLA soccer coach with Columbia State degree

Monday's Daily Bruin had an editorial about Saldana, arguing that UCLA should dismiss him. See http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/db/archivedarticles.asp?ID=18082&date=1/28/2002 .

 

The flaw in that theory is that the coach isn't even trying that tactic. He's sticking by his guns that he took actual courses by correspondence, which we know (courtesy of the US Postal Inspectors) is total bullshit.

As for due process....yes, everyone should be accorded due process. IN A CRIMINAL MATTER. Using a bogus degree to secure a job is unethical and stupid as hell, but it isn't illegal in this case. As Rich pointed out, the burden of proof in a civil case is the preponderence of the evidence. That means more likely than not. Just 50.1% will do the trick.

Is it more likely than not that the coach knew exactly what he was buying? I think that's a no-brainer.


Bruce

 

This is an excellent question with a simple answer. If he bought - hook, line and sinker - the "life credit" fabrication of the bogus school, then he is simply too stupid to be in a position of teaching, coaching, mentoring and serving as a role model for these young athletes. If, on the other hand, he knew exactly what he was doing, then, in addition to being stupid he could also be categorized as sleazy. Either way, the man is unfit for such a position.

Gus Sainz
http://collegedegrees.tripod.com

 

This is exactly how I felt about Iran-Contra. Either the President was ignorant (and, therefore, incompetent) or lying (and, therefore, guilty). Neither is a ringing endorsement for a President or a university athletics coach.

Rich Douglas

 

Rich, thanks for your comments re: law to a non-law guy. I appreciate it.

In your example, you mention "the judge". In the case of the coach, who is the judge? Obviously, it has to come down to someone making a call. Right now, it seems that all sides have an investment in the outcome (press, coach, UCLA). To me a judge needs to be impartial - no investment.

Second, I would assume - that even in civil cases - the judge hears both sides of the story in an objective manner. Even orgs. have HR-type boards that oversee such. Again in the case of the coach, where are the objective arguments? So far it seems to be in the press - who again has an investment.

I also liked your emphasis on preponderance of the evidence, which it completely reasonable. In the case of the coach, we have some evidence, but we don't have all the evidence. Or at best we are unsure we have it all. The coach has never seriously presented his case. Then we get back to who weighs the evidence.

Again, I'm not saying that the coach is innocent. It doesn't look good. But I also know that I don't *know* for sure - until both sides are heard.

I'm hanging on to this topic (tho I should be doing "real work") because my concern that innocents will be exposed though a weak process.

I think this dialogue could help drive out an ethical process - one that anyone can live with. Does anyone have a constructive draft process that we can kick the tires on?

 

Let me add....

Yes, lured by greed and the need to deceive. Greed in essence to get a credential for a fee and use it to exploit others. The deception continues until the time bomb explodes. UCLA was the victim.

I also concur with the opinion that it is hard to be duped. Maybe since his athletes don't have to attend classes he didn't either (just kidding, as I don't know if the athletes can get excused from from their classes as UCLA).

John

 

The only thing with this guy is that he received his *degree* in 1997, and *IF* he is to be believed might've started work on the degree in 1996. In 1997 it wasn't so widely known about Columbia State, not everyone was on the internet and not everyone knew A.E.D newsgroup. When I received my Columbia State Flyer around that time is was very very believable and you kinda want to believe it if you don't have a Bachelor's degree. Luckily I really did alot of research and found out they were no good, someone who did less research than me could easily found not much in 96/97 about Columbia State, I even called some Louisiana govt. office in 97 and they confirmed they were a school in that state. Personally I think he's lying mainly because of the 1yr he claims it took to finish his degree, but myself almost gotten duped by Columbia State I can definately see in 1997 he thought it was real and the school was real.

 

On a technical note: due process is a matter for the courts alone. It is not required in the media (although they are subject to libel suits), in personal conversation, or on discussion boards. As mere observers of the process, we can express our opinions about the allegations because we are not part of this instance of the process. We may personally choose to apply the concept of due process to ourselves if we think it is the right way to conduct ourselves, but it is not required of us.

The media should show restraint when they approach making due process impossible (such as interfering with jury selection or jury safety), but I don't know if they are required by law to do so (except when under a bench order).

 

This morning's LA Times reports that UCLA will not renew Todd Saldana's contract. See http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-000008113feb01.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dsports . The UCLA news release on the subject is at http://uclabruins.fansonly.com/sports/m-soccer/spec-rel/013102aaa.html .

 

I'm sure UCLA is trying to get past this thing with as little publicity as possible. So they say kind words about the guy and state they feel he wasn't trying to fool them. Then the coach goes on to say he worked on courses for a year with Columbia State. This just can't be true; Columbia State didn't offer courses. They only sold diplomas and transcripts.

There could be no other intent on this person's part but to fool school officials. Even if you accept his explanation that he worked on courses towards the degree, the school still wasn't accredited, yet he presented the degree to the school as a credential sufficient for the position. It wasn't. All the explaining in the world doesn't change that.

I realize people get fooled and/or mislead by some unaccredited schools. But Columbia State wasn't a school; it was a diploma mill. The coach bought his degree and used it. That's it.

Rich Douglas

 

I think that first off, we should agree that only totally fraudulent schools should be considered. Schools that are still questionable or merely unaccredited should be excluded from consideration. I think that's a first step we can all agree on.


Bruce

 

Okay. Same scenarior with the coach, except that his degree came from Cal Coast instead of Columbia State. My take: same result. The position required an accredited degree. He didn't have one, but posed as if he did. The school should've checked, they didn't, but the onus remained on him to meet the requirement. He didn't just fail to meet the requirement, he presented a credential as if it met the requirement. This would be the same regardless of whether the degree came from a diploma mill or a legitmate, unaccredited school.

The shame isn't in the degree, it's in the fact that he was supposed to have an accredited bachelor's degree and he presented one that was not. This is an active act of fraud. (As opposed to the victimized stance he's taken!)

Now, if we're talking about some real estate agent with a Cal Coast degree, fine. Who cares? Hey, I don't even think I'd bother with the real estate agent if his degree was from Columbia State. But UCLA? Varsity sports coach? A position of public trust that requires an accredited degree? No brainer.

Rich Douglas

 

Daily Bruin article Saldaña steps down from post. AGREEMENT: Men’s soccer coach leaves after degree is found to be fraudulent indicates he's already gone (not waiting till June expiration of his contract).

 

BobC's point is a good one. How much due diligence can one expect someone to do before choosing a degree program, especially when the degree, even if totally legitimate, has nothing whatever to do with performance of the job.

Columbia State was a clever fraud, and for 5 or 6 years, 1991 onward, I was just about the only person pointing at them with alarm. UCLA requires an accredited degree. Columbia State offered evidence of accreditation, including a phone number for their (equally) fake accreditor. What more should one have done?

The due diligence issue is important, and as with so many things we discuss here, there is no simple answer, I think.

The biggest scam I fell for was when we bought a new car from a Chrysler dealer in 1990. We paid $700 for the extended service warranty, and received paperwork. When the car had horrible problems after the regular warranty had run out, we learned that the dealer had taken our money and given us paperwork, but had never sent our money on to Chrysler, and so we had no warranty.

Chrysler said, "Hey, not our problem; that was only an independent dealer; they are responsible."

Before I could get my forms from small claims court, the dealer had declared bankrupcy and, amazingly, a couple of days later, the dealership burned to the ground, including all their paperwork.

That was when Chrysler grudgingly agreed to honor the extended service warranty.

But what should I have done? It never occurred to me to do that sort of due diligence on such a transaction. Maybe the forum on CarInfo would say unkind things about me. But it really wouldn't surprise me if the UCLA Athletic Department, wanting this man as a coach, was all too eager to accept his degree. After all, it WAS accredited, and did the rule say that the accrediting agency had to be one recognized by the Dept. of Education?

 

I guess that this means that I should still give the administration at Athabasca U a hard time from time to time, just to keep things honest.

Darren.

 

Well.... yes, but what's "totally fraudulent" vs. "questionable"?

At one end, you have Harrington/Palmers Green/whatever it is this week. They have even called themselves a mill in a phone conversation, so that's pretty open-and-shut.

But then it gets a little more cloudy.

Capitol and Trinity are pretty clearly total frauds, but they claim to have the right to issue degrees.

And Monticello, for example, was pretty clearly "totally fraudulent", but operated with the knowledge of HI and KS authorities using the "we don't teach here" loophole in both places... until a bunch of us provided sufficient info to the authorities to get them shut down.

In the middle of the spectrum, you have lots of schools like Columbus (operated out of a martial arts dojo) or Washington International (moved multiple times, no identifiable faculty) or even Barrington (no faculty, no visible offices, but a publicly traded corporation) that are almost certainly mills, but that we tend to refrain from calling mills.

At the other end of the spectrum is, for example, Cal Coast. I would never call them a mill, although I'd also have a hard time arguing in favor of defending them.

So how do we draw the line? IMHO, no question on Harrington/Palmers Green, Trinity, Capitol... and I'd vote in favor of including Columbus and Washington International... but others might differ. And, of course, I'd never include Cal Coast.

Ideas?

 

I've concentrated my research (such that it is) on Columbia State specifically because there can be no question among reasonable people that it was a total phony. Being shut down by the FBI makes it a slam-dunk.

However, I do agree that there could be questions concerning other schools. The thing is, unfortunately, there are enough totally fraudulent schools to keep us occupied for quite awhile.


Bruce

 

True, but I have the feeling (based on nothing but my gut instinct) that if the coach had a degree from California Coast or another unaccredited but legitimate school, one of two things would have happened:

1) No one would have noticed. Who would take the time to wade through the thousands of website hits for Cal Coast, and then look up the job requirements for each position?

or

2) If someone did notice and raise the issue, the coach would have quietly been given the opportunity to complete his Bachelor's degree.

I don't think the word "unaccredited" made the story a big deal, it was "diploma mill" and "shut down by the FBI" that made the headlines.


Bruce

 

Of course, Cal Coast has many times been referred to as a diploma or degree mill. The story might have also used the terms "mail-drop" and "correspondence school," both of which have been used in a derogatory manner towards legitimate--even accredited--DL schools in order to denigrate them and their graduates. I used to hear it all the time about The Union Institute and about Columbia Pacific University.

I'm not so sure the school would have permitted--once faced with negative publicity--the coach to "recover" from a Cal Coast degree. I realize this is only my opinion, but I feel it was the fact that the position requires an accredited degree and he doesn't have one that matters here. I wouldn't count on anyone making the fine distinction between a legitimate unaccredited school and an illegitimate one. It's usually the other way around, where legitimate--and even accredited--nontraditional schools get lumped in with the diploma mills.

Here's a test: would UCLA admit a holder of a California-approved bachelor's into its master's program? Despite the fact that UCLA is a state-run school, I seriously doubt it.

Rich Douglas