Why isn't regional accreditation enough for a DL degree to be accepted by a B&M?

My premise is utterly correct, in that, NA schools that issue degrees derive their recognition under the Code of Federal Regulations, which raises a federal question of law (34 C.F.R. Sec 602). Therefore, subject matter jurisdiction would be properly vested in a federal court. Moreover, since RA schools are involved in "interstate commerce" (by offering degree programs through their websites), it also raises a federal question of law.

Simply put, when a RA school conducts business online through its website by offering programs to the general public, it has purposefully availed itself to jurisdiction in each state it conducts business in by way of minimum contacts. The leading case on this is: Zippo Mfr. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997), which established a sliding scale standard for internet jurisdiction.

Sliding Scale Standard:

1. Substantial business conducted over the internet (sufficient for jurisdiction)
2. Some interactivity through a website (may or not be sufficient)
3. Passive advertising (insufficient)

If, for example, the events giving rise to a NA graduate's injury occured in his home state of A, as a result of enrolling in a RA School's online program in state B, then venue jurisdiction would be properly vested in a federal court in state A, and diversity jurisdiction would apply under 28 U.S.C. Sec 1332.

If you look at it closely, you will see that the issue of a NA degree isn't just state issue and also raises federal questions. Besides, federal courts would apply the Erie doctrine relating to substantive state law. So, realistically, it would likely involve both federal and state application of law.

We obviously have a disagreement on this issue, which is all part of discussion.

With all due respect, 30 years ago distance learning was not at the forefront. Today it is and there are exponentially more graduates from DL NA programs. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to conclude that those graduates will be looking for acceptance of their NA credentials.

 

For me, it seems as if you're blending two different areas of the law.

The 1st is the federal law against the states interfering with intestate commerce. States have the right to decide what types of businesses may or may not exist in their state but they can't discriminate. In other words, it's not ok to say 'Company X may own and operate grocery stores here because their corporate offices are located within the state but Company Y may not because their corporate offices are not'

But that doesn't always extend to education because education isn't always seen as commerce. For instance, UOP is prohibited from offering both education and nursing programs in certain states simply because those states' licensing boards haven't approved UOP as a provider of education for those professions. Because those are state licensed professions, the interstate commerce law doesn't necessarily apply. The state does have a right to authorize (or not) certain providers of education leading to a state-issued license.

I suppose if some state were willing to say 'We oppose UOP solely because its offices are in AZ...', UOP might have a case.

The 2nd is federal bans on discrimination. Discrimination is only prohibited IF it occurs against people of protected classes. For instance, no company may say 'We don't hire people who have belonged to labor unions' because that is a protected class. However, ANY company is free to say 'We don't hire people from XYZ University for this job' because your college of choice does not amount to a protected class. Thus, there's no lawsuit. A DETC credential, or an RA credential for that matter, only amounts to what a state licensing board and/or an employer assesses it as.

You can't force any employer to accept you based on your education. Now, if a state licensing board has explicit rules for who may enter the profession, and your educational preparation (RA or NA) meets those guidelines, you similarly cannot be denied access.

But this notion that a state may be forced to say 'Graduate XYZ must meet the criteria for this state license because he or she graduated from DETC U. which is accredited by the Federal government' will never happen because the federal government doesn't issue state licenses. The states decide those issues.

 

I don't know you but here's what I get from most of your posts.

You're pursuing a PhD which should be an endeavor which makes you incredibly proud and yet, you're doing a LOT of fretting and hand-wringing.

What does that suggest?

 

Oh no, you've got it all wrong. I'm not even asking this question for myself in particular. I merely have a number of things that bug me or that make me curious and I enjoy reading the different opinions from the learned members here. There are a number of academic administrators and experienced professors that frequent this board and they have taught me so much. I love learning from this group. Judging from the number of viewers and the number of individuals that post to my threads, I'm not alone.

I like NCU and I'm not particularly concerned, but I wouldn't hesitate to jump ship should a better option come along.

Thanks for your concern, though! Kind regards!

 

Embry-Riddle employs quite a few faculty with degrees from purely DL schools. So maybe there are other schools that also accpt DL degrees.

 

Very interesting. Thank you.

 

What I demonstrated was that NA degrees are not just a state issue, but also raise federal questions of law. I also showed how a federal court could hear such a case through diversity jurisdiction. My view is that with the significant rise of NA graduates experiencing prejudicial treatment on the recognition of their credentials, it is likely that this aggrieved class will be looking for redress, unless that arbitrary policy changes.

Lastly, that because of the multitude of jurisdictions involved in distance education and schools that are reaching nationally into every state, that it is federal in scope.

Suffice to say that we disagree.

 

Bingo.

Posters have sometimes suggested that there is a vast and powerful lobby of well-organized universities which hold regional accreditation, working behind the scenes to thwart access to other educational options. I do not think that such universities and their accrediting bodies are so well organized, nor do they feel threatened by schools without accreditation or with non-programmatic accreditation like TRACS and DETC. However, a lawsuit attempting to bully all regionally accredited schools into having to accept DETC credits/degrees might be the fastest way to unify and mobilize the supposed “cartel” into attempting to influence the USDoE to pull their recognition of DETC. Brilliant!

 

I think, in reply to this thread that it suffices to say that the quickest and best way to mess up a system dependent on relationships and respect is to get the federal government involved. That's not to say that a problem won't get fixed by legislation, but the government is not known for taking a global view of a problem and addressing every tactical issue completely thus making what they "solved" actually be better for the people effected.

This is especially true when the best solution is considered in terms of simplicity. Do your homework before going to school and make sure your degree will work for what you want to do before spending money. Getting the government to legislate what is essentially a personal responsibility where ignorance only hurts the ignorant is irresponsible and very dangerous in precedent.

But as someone interested in legality, no doubt you've heard that argument in your professional ethics class.

 

We definitely do but I'm going to make it a point to respond to you because you are in the habit of repeating this argument in many threads and it seems to lack a basis from the perspective of business law.

I've challenged your argument on specific points. I do not believe you have a rebuttal. I think it's reckless for you to continue stating that DETC graduates have cause for some class action lawsuit based on federal laws that do not exist regarding professional licensure (state-regulated for nursing, education and accounting) and/or employment discrimination (based on protected classes of which school of choice is not one).

I'd love to read a rebuttal based on what I've written above. Show me where the federal government has any authority to dictate to the states what is appropriate education for state-licensed occupations OR where school of choice is a protected class under federal discrimination laws.

Alternatively, consider that you're wrong.

 

Whoa, your not watching the news much. The answer to any problem is to have the government take it over and raise taxes on anyone who tries. We already have goverment run primary and secondary education, why not higher education also! It would solve the accreditation problem for sure!

Love = VAT

 

Right! Because there is no precidence at the state level. Oh wait, Texas..

 

There is no mention of education in the U.S. Constitution.

The states regulate education at all levels.

The U.S. Department of Education maintains a list of recognized accrediting agencies for the explicit purpose of awarding financial aid, NOT for deciding which schools should be allowed to operate.

Those accreditors do not prevent their accredited schools from accepting credits/degrees from NA schools. Schools set their own policies on that. (Same with credits/degrees from foreign schools. Same with unaccredited schools. Etc.)

Students/graduates of NA schools have seen their credits/degrees rejected by RA schools ever since there were NA schools awarding credits/degrees. Where have all the class action suits been?

I don't see the link between the issue (discrimination against students/graduates of NA schools) and the federal government. So......

A class action suit against whom? Each school? Good luck with that.

 

Hmm.. I was reading it and I found it right under where the constitution says we all have to buy insurance...

AND, given that higher education funding was taken over by the government IN THE HEALTHCARE BILL I don't see what the issue is..

Hearts & Minds baby!

 

Lawsuits are the wrong tactic. I think that the ultimate acceptance of nationally accredited degrees depends on the quality of the graduates.

 

California runs three post secondary education systems very well (CCs, CSU, and UC). There are other well respected state run schools around the USA.
Independant accreditation bodies are still required to police the govt run educational institutions.

Tonight I'm off to my local UC campus to hear from a faculty member who nobel prize winner in chemistry.

 

This doesn't make sense. The poster was talking about suing based upon perceived rights that simply don't exist.

The U.S. government has a very large role in education. But rights? That's another story.