How Often Does "Degree Revocation" Occur?

The degreeinfo disciplinary committee has already made a ruling (no appeal process) and your DI decoder ring is being revoked.

 

I have brought dishonor upon my family.

 

Because in my opinion, it is unethical. Apparently you have a different opinion, Neuhaus. No problem, we agree to disagree.

Could you please cite the post where I said the above? Because I wouldn't make a spectacle out of myself over either an unaccredited or honorary doctorate, nor would I try to publically shame/humiliate someone who had one or both. We're merely posting on an online forum.

If you ever have to have a coronary bypass, opt for an honorary cardiologist. They're probably less expensive. {smile}

 

Okay, be sure to address Mike Tyson, Ben Affleck, P-Diddy, Ed O'Neill (Al Bundy), and Kermit the Frog as "Doctor", should you ever meet any of them.

Absurd. It's a statement of fact, unless you happen to have a crystal ball handy. No one knows for sure what he did or didn't do, but one almost surefire indicator of future behavior is past performance. Your integrity and reputation is very hard to establish, but also very easy to lose. Simply put, if you're caught as a cheater, your integrity about everything else, past and future, comes into question.

 

Who never earned so much as an Associate's degree, and I find her non-rhyming "poetry" to be like fingernails down a blackboard.

Constitutional Law 101 - Constitutional protections only apply to government action. You keep going on and on about "due process", which is mentioned in the 5th and 14th Amendments. The problem is, revoking a degree is an administrative action, not a criminal trial, so due process doesn't apply; revoking a degree does not deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property.

I don't think I can put it any better than the article I quoted earlier. Boston University is now in the uncomfortable position of defending a plagiarist; if they were honest, they'd say "Yes, he cheated like shit on his dissertation, but if we revoked his degree, a lot of people would get mad and we'd probably lose a lot of money".

 

You should revisit my comments Neuhaus. I never wrote or remotely proposed what you imply in your response. Moreover, the investigating committee was a lot more than pretty sure King was guilty of plagiarism in that the four-member committee of scholars absolutely concluded (e.g., “There is no question…”) MLK did incorporate plagiarized material into his dissertation. That’s an absolute finding /decision by the BU appointed panel as opposed to “…we’re pretty sure…” Without question ... there is no correlation among the two.

E.g.:

"There is no question," the committee said in a report to the university's provost, "but that Dr. King plagiarized in the dissertation by appropriating material from sources not explicitly credited in notes, or mistakenly credited, or credited generally and at some distance in the text from a close paraphrase or verbatim quotation."
Boston U. Panel Finds Plagiarism by Dr. King - NYTimes.com

 

So then, you maintain that if I'm caught on camera robbing a convenience store that it would be fair and just to simply skip the trial.

Better yet, if I'm dead and that video surfaces, it should be completely legal to put me on trial, unable to defend myself, because you're more than "pretty sure" that I absolutely did it.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion on the matter. I just think it is not in keeping with the American notion of due process and I, personally, find it distasteful.

 

I'm sure that Dr. Angelou agonized on her death-bed at having not won your imprimatur for her work.

So, you just plain didn't read the report I posted, did you? Because numerous courts have disagreed with you on this front. If the school is public then it absolutely must afford you a chance to defend yourself because having a degree revoked most certainly causes a significant impact to your livelihood.

Private schools have a significant amount of leeway. However, I've addressed that elsewhere. I'm not aware of a single university that does not have some form of disciplinary proceedings when a student is accused of misconduct. Not one. I went to a Jesuit school. If you were ever accused of cheating it was spelled out in the student handbook what your rights were. Chief among those rights were the ability to be informed of your charges, given a fair and impartial hearing and the ability to consult both an attorney and a student advocate. The University of Scranton has the legal authority to revoke a degree. Yet, they, like all civilized universities, have a process in place to ensure that power is not abused. That you seem to advocate for a university to throw that process out the window is mind-boggling.

But, why speak of this in such high level terms? Why speak on a theoretical plane? Here is the Academic Code of Conduct for Boston University. I see many mentions of student rights. I see hearings, I see notice. I see nothing that says "We can discipline you after you're dead." Please, leaf through and point out the part where Boston University ever allows the university to take action against a student without affording that student some form of due process. I'll be right here enjoying my coffee while you look.

 

"Absurd."

Okay.

 

So if it’s you recorded on the video committing the crime … then it’s not you on the video being proffered as your due process itinerary and baseless defense. Your point of argument is specious at best Neuhaus—specifically this case with regard to the definitive findings re MLK’s plagiarized dissertation. In this particular situation (MLK), definite verifications of plagiarism (via an administrative /investigative procedure) are meaningless; it is the process that is the paramount concern to you. You continue in echoing, via your exampled effort, to institute a relationship of plagiarism findings by an investigative committee to that of a court proceeding (e.g., administration of justice—through the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments /Due Process Clause)—an irrelevant and vain attempt at correlations. Perhaps just being the polemical figure for due process (sidestepping the element of material relevance) is the single perceptible motivation here (?).

 

The link you provide is current. I wonder if this same Academic Code of Conduct was in place back in 1991 when the BU committee conducted its investigation.

 

Maybe it was and maybe it wasn't. I'm sure that, whatever the policy was in 1991, that it still had many of the same elements that gave the student some form of rights to defend themselves.

Had it occurred to you that, perhaps, one of the reasons why the committee recommended against revocation was the ultimate reality that, unable to defend himself, Dr. King's degree could never be revoked without running afoul of university policies?

 

My point exactly...

Maybe the 1991 version did /maybe not...

Such has occurred to me re this case: 1) strictly a politically predicated decision by BU—circumventing evidentiary findings, 2) a degree revocation decision would serve little after-the-fact value, plus the more likely political exposure and fiscal consequences to BU—and much less so, 3) whether or not BU's decision was due to university policy and/or King's opportunity (unavailable option) to due process address the indefensible. More importantly—such would have been a pointless undertaking /exercise by either MLK and/or Boston U...

 

I find it hard to believe that you are actually making such a statement with a straight face. So, what, you think it is a reasonable thought that, perhaps, in 1991 Boston University simply had no disciplinary procedure for academic dishonesty? It was just a big Wild West scenario? No hearings, no judicial officers, no appeals process they just did whatever they wanted, whenever they wanted and had no concern for evenly applying that standard? I get that you're trying to make a point but you're really, really stretching at this point.

Even if the policy was not identical it had some form of giving the student an opportunity to defend him/herself. Every university has one, to greater and lesser extents. If you think that Boston University, perhaps just decided to get into the business of allowing students an opportunity to defend themselves when accused of misconduct, then please go out and find some proof. The mere idea that the 1991 "maybe" didn't afford students some form of rights to defend themselves is so absolutely absurd that I'm embarrassed for you having said it (at least, for having said it without a clever emoji afterward indicating that you were simply being cheeky).

Such was not my intention, so let's equate it instead to a private company, shall we?

My company has a procedure in place for the termination of employees. Legally, we exist in an at-will employment state. We can legally terminate an employee for any reason at any time as long as we don't run afoul of another law (ADA, Civil Rights Act etc). Yet, we follow this procedure to ensure that our policy is uniformly applied to all employees to prevent those unlawful terminations. If we deviate from the process for one person we open ourselves up to significant legal issues.

Public institutions have a greater obligation to affording due process. I'm not making this up you need only to read the article I posted. But, let me give you another "non-court" example along the same lines:

I'm reminded of a local insurance agent where I used to live who was accused of killing his wife and son. He was arrested and he confessed within the scope of a day. Despite the fact that 1) He absolutely did "it" and 2) He would never work as an insurance agent again (I've not lived in a state that takes a gentle view toward double homicides) the state department of insurance still had to send someone to visit him in jail to inform him 1) That the state was pursuing disciplinary proceedings against him as a licensed professional 2) that he was entitled to a hearing 3) that he was entitled to legal representation.

These were no court proceedings against him. They were administrative. Purely administrative. His hearing officer would likely be a mid-level non-attorney bureaucrat in Harrisburg. And yet, those were his rights. Why couldn't they just say "You know what? We're going to revoke this guy's license. He has bigger issues at the moment?" Because the policies and procedures give him certain rights and the state couldn't just dispense with those rights even if they had a "really good reason."

What you're trying to do is give the words "due process" exclusive meaning to the Constitution. While the Constitution certainly does have "due process" clauses it isn't the only usage of the term. Any time you are afforded all legal protections (be they constitutional, statutory or simply administrative) available to you you are receiving your "due process."

So, no. I'm not trying to make this into a constitutional issue. You are. And you are doing so incorrectly.

 

You can have all the last comments Neuhaus … it’s tiresome committing time to reading through your prolonged diatribes. And at a quick glance of your latest … I’ll just pass on devoting any further effort to reading such. To respond to any further extent would simply be a continued exercise in wasted time…

Cheers

 

Ah come on...

 

:chairfall:

 

Dr. Martin Luther King has been found to have plagiarized portions of his doctoral dissertation.

Dr. Martin Luther King is one of the most positively transformative figures in American history and was a gift to our country and people.

I can see and acknowledge both.