How Often Does "Degree Revocation" Occur?

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by RAM PhD, Oct 28, 2015.

Loading...
  1. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Academic fraud is not OK. But neither is denying a person, any person, their due process. When you're dead you cannot defend yourself. We shouldn't revoke the degrees of the dead, be they famous or otherwise, for the same reason that we shouldn't be able to put dead people on trial for criminal matters. That doesn't mean that their original crime was "OK" but that we shouldn't do show trials, that do not bring the offender to justice, when they cannot defend themselves.

    If you read that analysis I posted earlier you'll note that the courts have routinely upheld degree revocations where an individual was afforded due process including: 1) being informed of the charges against them 2) having the opportunity to consult and be advised by an attorney and 3) being able to defend oneself in an impartial disciplinary proceeding.

    So, raise Dr. King from the dead, give him a lawyer, put him in front of a disciplinary committee and revoke the degree. I'd support that effort 100%. But as long as he remains dead his degree should not be revoked.
     
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    The notion of making one plagiarized dissertation--that's already been exhaustively studied and published about--the subject of another dissertation is dumb. That remains my point.
     
  3. RAM PhD

    RAM PhD Member

    Nor did I say it would be uncovering plagiarism, only that this subject could be made into a viable thesis/dissertation providing it followed the scientific method and added some new nuance per the data. Theses/dissertations have been written on some very strange subjects (like the orientation of a cat hair taken from the left ear of a hairless cat: implications for the cat food industry in Istanbul). If one finds a school, program, dissertation advisor/committee that will approve the topic, the scientific method is utilized, all the bases of a research M or PhD are covered, one could potentially research most any topic.
     
  4. RAM PhD

    RAM PhD Member

    If that topic has been "exhaustively studied and published about," then you may have a point, Rich. I have never personally seen scholarly published works on King's alleged plagiarism. There may be 100 theses/dissertations on the topic, I don't know. But I specified in my post "if no previous research had engaged the exact same topic." So, if King's plagiarized dissertation HAS NOT already been exhaustively studied, it would not be dumb and would then be a viable topic provided all other criteria were met.
     
  5. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    Are you saying that Dr. King would not be an appropriate subject of study for a PhD in Church History?
     
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    No, much more narrower than that. (A single person could make a fine case study.)

    I balked at the notion that the subject of his plagiarized dissertation would be a suitable subject for someone else's dissertation. I objected to it on several grounds: not scholarly, already been covered elsewhere, nothing new to know, too small a subject to make a significant contribution, etc. That's all. It's not a big deal and I think the subject has run its course, IMHO.
     
  7. Ted Heiks

    Ted Heiks Moderator and Distinguished Senior Member

    So, some other aspect of Dr. King could maske a good PhD dissertation in Church History, but not the subject of his supposedly plagiarized dissertation?
     
  8. RAM PhD

    RAM PhD Member

    Most anything can be researched from a scholarly perspective (i.e., per the scientific method), even sending surveys to HR persons/school registrars to determine the level of acceptance on non-RA degrees. That doesn't, on the surface, sound scholarly, but you utilized the scientific method and made it scholarly, Rich.

    To say there is nothing new to know implies that every single nuance of a given topic has been exhausted. In King's case, this may be true, but I don't know that it is, and I doubt you do either, Rich, unless you have researched the issue.

    The criterion in PhD studies it to make a contribution. The word "significant" can be very subjective. What is significant to one can be monumental to others. The criterion for a successful PhD is that it make "a contribution." I would think the dissertations that make a significant contribution to a given discipline (eg, the E = MC2 kind of contribution) are in the minority. If a dissertation committee from a reputable school deem the data as a contribution, neither my opinion nor Rich's opinion matter all that much.

    And I agree, it isn't a big deal.
     
  9. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    This is a very nice post and I think I'll leave it at that.
     
  10. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    http://www.stetson.edu/law/conferences/highered/archive/2005/RevokeDegrees.pdf

    The most telling, and most appropriate quote from that paper;

    "The court went on to note that, unless a university has the power to revoke or rescind a previously granted degree, the university is placed in the untenable position of continuing to certify to the public that the former student did, indeed, meet all of the university’s degree requirements".

    Your own words reveal the wisdom of these words, you refer to him as "Dr. King" when the title of Doctor was clearly not legitimately earned.
     
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    With dozens of honorary doctorates, each of which confers the title 'doctor,' I am not clear how this can be true.

    I see his Spingarn, Presidential Medal of Freedom, and Nobel Peace Prize are intact, too.
     
  12. Bruce

    Bruce Moderator

    Are you suggesting that anyone who is bestowed an honorary doctorate has earned the title, and should be addressed as "doctor"?

    As far as anyone knows, he didn't cheat on his notable achievements that earned him those awards. Not so for his Ph.D.
     
  13. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    These are two ideas. I'll address them separately.

    The term "earned" has a unique meaning in higher education when it comes to degrees. I did not say he "earned" them. He was awarded them for cause, however. There is no distinction between an earned doctorate and one awarded honorarily when it comes to the title. A person awarded an honorary doctorate is a 'doctor.'

    The second part of your statement is another thing entirely, and I didn't say that, either. Whether or not he (or anyone) "should" be called 'doctor' is a highly subjective and personal one. YMMV.
    "As far as anyone knows" is pejorative. There has never been a hint of what you're saying. Using that qualifier is a back-handed way of saying it might be true. The more scientific way to say it is that he did not cheat, and then amend it if evidence to the contrary arises.
     
  14. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    It suited Dr. Maya Angelou just fine.

    So then you feel that we should be able to put the dead on trial? I mean, beyond the academic issue before us. If you feel that due process simply isn't important enough for death to shield a person from charges of plagiarism, what about murder? Why not make it so that I can charge a dead person with a crime? So what that they cannot defend themselves? It will make us feel better.
     
  15. RAM PhD

    RAM PhD Member

    Not to be argumentative with Rich, because the honorary doctorate/title protocol is certainly used by more than a few. However, I personally believe this practice is in most cases unethical. Yes, the person referenced in the above post was awarded an honorary doctorate for a "cause." And while my comments do not reflect this particular person (because I don't know the person), the awarding of honorary doctorates is certainly not limited to those who have excelled academically in a given field. Every year politicians, sports stars, actors, financiers, etc., are awarded honorary doctorates. This is often due to an institution wanting to associate its name with a well-known person(s), honor someone who made a large donation to the school or in some way advanced the school's recognition, and a host of other reasons. IMHO, this does not warrant the title "Dr.," anymore than someone who helps an elderly lady across the street. Praise them for their good deeds, honor them with recognition, applaud their endeavors, but the title "Dr.," absolutely not. The ethics of the practice comes into play when such a person is referenced as "Dr. John Doe." To the average person, hearing someone referenced as "Dr. John Doe" implies the person has "done the work" and "passed the test," is certified/credentialed by whatever agency or agencies define the discipline. And of course this is not the case (i.e., if the only doctoral credential one has is honorary). So, while I can't speak/act/respond for anyone else, I would respect, honor and appreciate all a person has accomplished, but I would have to refrain from addressing someone as "Dr." based on an honorary doctorate alone..
     
  16. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    And often times those honorary doctorates are in somewhat related fields. Let's take a look at Billy Joel's honorary degrees:

    Doctor of Humane Letters from Fairfield University (1991)
    Doctor of Music from Berklee College of Music (1993)
    Doctor of Humane Letters from Hofstra University (1997)
    Doctor of Music from Southampton College (2000)
    Doctor of Fine Arts from Syracuse University (2006)[96]
    Doctor of Musical Arts from the Manhattan School of Music (2008)
    Doctor of Music from Stony Brook University (2015)

    Now, I can't say much for the Humane Letters, but I think a musician receiving an honorary Doctor of Music (or Musical Arts) from two schools that specialize in Music is a bit different from Neuhaus receiving an honorary Doctor of Laws from a school that I donate lots of money to.


    While helping an old lady cross the street is, indeed, a noble act it would absolutely not confer the title of "Doctor." Being awarded a doctorate by a university, however, does.


    It actually doesn't sound like you'd respect or honor them at all. It sounds a lot like you'd have been sitting in the back row adding "air quotes" to the mention of "Dr." Maya Angelou or "Dr." Ben Franklin.

    Col. Sanders was awarded the honorary title of "Colonel" by the Governor of Kentucky. That doesn't make him an Army Officer. It makes him a Kentucky Colonel eligible to use his title. The only time this is going to cross the line into an unethical behavior is if you are attempting to represent your degree as something it is not (i.e. representing an honorary degree as a degree as one granted on the basis of coursework).

    If universities did not want to confer the title of "doctor" then they would be free to confer an honorary bachelors or masters degree (New York also recognizes the honorary associates degree). And, while I'm sure this is done periodically, the more common approach is to award a doctorate.

    Honorary Mayors are perfectly entitled to call themselves "Mayor." It's not terribly different from a former Senator still using the title "Senator" after leaving office. Using a title is different from using a title with the intention of deceiving others.

    I'm not sure why this is such a hot button item with you or why you feel the need to constantly throw the word "unethical" out there for it. This is almost as bad as that time you said you'd publicly make a spectacle out of yourself if you ever attended a conference and ran into someone with an unaccredited doctorate using the title of "Doctor."
     
  17. major56

    major56 Active Member

    The due process you polemic for re MLK … however, in this explicit case—such if possible (due process), would simply be a useless exercise in that the Boston University investigative committee evinced that King did plagiarize substantial portions of his 1955 dissertation, e.g., A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Henry Nelson Wieman. http://kingencyclopedia.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Vol2/550415AComparisonOfTheConceptionsOfGod.pdf. This BU finding (10/10/1991) is irrefutable Neuhaus Boston U. Panel Finds Plagiarism by Dr. King - NYTimes.com. Obviously the deceased MLK, cannot be legally afforded a due process proceeding. Whereas at this stage, e.g., as to whether or not to rescind the awarded doctoral degree … I’ll guarantee that King no longer cares whatsoever … Nor do I.

    The aftermath being that MLK doesn’t escape: 1) the degree awarding institution’s (Boston U) investigation of and its outcomes as to King’s dissertation integrity, 2) the exposed academic deception, and/or 3) the subsequent would-be consequences to his scholarly reputation ... even post-death. Truth will eventually prevail, whether the procedural action (an impossibility re this case in point) of due process transpired or not. A due process procedure, in this example, will not change the results that MLK did in fact pirate significant portions of his dissertation paper. As to the subject of the doctoral degree should/should not be rescinded … is immaterial to me personally—but at this juncture, degree revocation, would unlikely serve any useful purpose IMO. The facts nevertheless—withstand that plagiarism was evidenced in King’s dissertation. Consequently, a MLK defense /explanations before a BU disciplinary panel would not however, change the committee finding/s as to his culpability whatsoever...

    PS Somewhat germane … the legal requirement of due process is precluded in at-will employments; but as a HR /employment specialist you already know this. So denying an individual due process is not at all uncommon.
     
  18. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Oh, so we don't have to afford due process as long as we're pretty sure that the person is guilty. That's a relief. Makes life much easier, don't you think?

    Due process is either afforded or not. There is no grey area where you deny due process because you feel it isn't warranted. In the document I linked to at the beginning of this discussion two things were highlighted prominently: 1) Universities need to have the authority to rescind and revoke degrees to preserve the integrity of their work and 2) the student needs to have the opportunity to defend themselves. The latter is especially true of public universities. Unfortunately, private universities are not so legally bound which brings us to your next assertion:

    Yes, many states allow at-will employment. My own employer is an "at-will" employer in that we legally reserve the right to terminate an employee at any time for any reason. Practically speaking, however, there is quite a process involved to terminate an employee. Absolutely no manager (below Vice President) has the authority to unilaterally dismiss an employee. Managers can suspend employees to buy themselves the time necessary to meet with HR and legal and develop a plan. And our internal policy is to afford an employee the opportunity to offer an explanation and a proposed course of action prior to termination. If you are being terminated for performance issues, for example, you might reasonably say "I'm not very good at job X. But I feel like I'd be better at job Y. I've done job Y on a temporary basis numerous times and they like the quality of my work there." Certainly not always fixable. But, there have been occasions in the past where we have made this adjustment. We are likewise willing to hear you out as to why you have so many unexcused absences.

    We are not legally required to do any of this. We do this because it is the socially responsible thing to do and, secondarily, it is a way to maintain workforce morale while still removing problem employees.

    I have not said that a school operates illegally in rescinding degrees. I've never said such a thing. I've never said that a school should not be able to legally rescind the degree of a dead person. What I said is that doing such is pretty sleazy. A school could, in such circumstances, wait until a person died to revoke a degree because they know that they could never have prevailed in that attempt while the person is living. Is that a realistic fear? I have no idea. Perhaps Hillsdale would want to lash out against an alumnus who worked for Bernie Sanders's campaign. The point is that affording alumni due process before revoking a degree is a best practice.

    Just because it's legal to do something doesn't mean it's a good idea.
     
  19. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    “To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” — G.K. Chesterton
     
  20. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Hmm, seems I inadvertently stole from G.K. Chesterton by not citing the last sentence of my post.

    I have never read anything by G.K. Chesterton but the similarities between our two sentences are pretty undeniably similar. I suppose then the conclusion is clear, that I willfully and maliciously stole from G.K. Chesterton, attempted to conceal my plagiarism and now, unrepentantly persist in refusing to attribute that quote to G.K. Chesterton.

    Fortunately, had this been a paper submitted to a university, I would have the opportunity to defend myself before a disciplinary committee.
     

Share This Page