KWU, From Diploma Mill to unaccredited

Mr. Contreras,

Thanks mighily for the update. It does make sense to settle the way you did.

I am curious still about ODA's view of unaccredited California J.D.s where the degree plus experience is used to qualify for the Oregon Bar. Perhaps the issue has not yet come up?

Secondly, are you washing away in the rain this winter? I see that my natal city, Seattle, is surrounded by flood warnings...

 

Alan:

First of all, thank you for taking the time to stop in and post updates. It has been said that the ODA (you in particular) have an agenda which is against all unaccredited schools, and is slanted toward RA accredited schools. So, my question is of course, is there an agenda that the ODA has that is beyond the scope of the Oregon law?

Was it your idea to label and describe schools as diploma mills, or were instructed to do so?

Finally, and most importantly to me at least, do you use an objective process to evaluate schools that apply for approval, or do you approve or deny schools based on your subjective opinion of it? In other words, does each school that applies get a fair shake?

Some of this was discussed here:

http://forums.degreeboard.com/showthread.php?t=873&page=1

http://forums.degreeboard.com/showthread.php?t=901&page=1

 

Replying to plcscott's inquiry about where ODA standards come from and how we use them.

The requirement of accreditation for degrees was set by the Oregon legislature two years before my arrival. It is in statute and ODA cannot change it. Anyone can go to the legislature and say "what a lousy law."

Therefore I am not "biased" against unaccredited degree suppliers, I am required by law to oppose use of their degrees unless they meet certain standards. That is my job as a state employee.

Most of the rules for administering the program were also written before my arrival. All of the program rules are approved by the Commission for which I work, and they don't always approve what I send them. I cannot make rules myself. All of the ODA rules are Oregon Administrative Rules and are available from the sidebar of the ODA web site.

My job is to decide whether a particular degree supplier falls within a particular category. The categories are established by the legislature and the commission. If I make errors, those can be challenged either by providing ODA with new information or by legal action.

I recommended to the commission that we adopt a formal legal definition of the term "diploma mill" precisely because there are so many definitions of it, thus none. The definition we came up with has not worked very well and we're going to try to improve it.

Hope this helps.

 

Hi Alan (and Scott, as interlocutor): Thank you for your candor and clarity. Amid the blather of trolls, shills, and opportunists, it is refreshing to see intelligent people discoursing intelligently. Best wishes to both of you, Janko

 

Alan:

I echo Uncle Janko's sentiments. Thanks for the clarity. Personally, I'm thrilled with the outcome. I always felt the list was a non-starter because it was (a) incomplete and (b) was akwardly implemented. I always felt a law banning the use of unaccredited degrees would be sufficient sans list. But this outcome is even better!

I have contended, and my doctoral dissertation strongly suggests, that the main utility in degrees from diploma mills and unaccredited schools is that most people don't realize that fact. In my research, a simple explanation about accreditation vis a vis state licensure/approval of unaccredited schools resulted in a significant change in participants' perceptions of these forms of recognition. In short, their acceptance of unaccredited degrees dropped.

I feel disclosure, if realized and enforced, will accomplish the same thing. Can you imagine the reaction of employers upon receiving a resume with such a disclaimer? I suspect many or most job applicants won't even get the opportunity to rationalize their degree(s) in job interviews--those interviews won't happen.

What I can't figure is why Kennedy-Western thinks this is a good thing.

 

Janko,

Thanks for causing me to look up yet another word.

I was not challenging or defending the ODA or Alan, just making a laymans observation based on what little I know and have learned.

I really do not care to call anyone a troll or shill, nor do I care to be called one or a part of some gang with an agenda simply because I post here. I would just like to discuss or debate issues without that.

 

Thanks!

Alan Contreras, I thank you for the information.

One question outstanding is whether or not KWU will be allowed to enroll Oregon residents? Another is if exact wording of the disclaimer will be specifed (to avoid things like state approved instead of unaccredited)?

 

From KWU's website, link posted above by Dr. Latin:

From reading this it looks like KWU is going to be heavily involved in developing new legislation in Oregon, and it looks like they will now be offering KWU programs to Oregon residents, unless I am reading this wrong.

From some recent articles also posted here, they also say they are going to be heavily involved with upcoming WY legislation, so I guess if you have enough money and the right attorney's then you can write your own rules.

Rich Douglas writes:

I just do not see how anyone could see it any other way. KWU will now offer programs in Oregon, the degrees are not illegal to use in Oregon if unaccredited attached to it, and they are going to have a say in changing the legislation, heck what more could they want?

Alan C. writes:

With all due respect, I do not see this as a gain from any point of view if before this it was a violation to use a degree at all, and now it is only a violation if not accompanied with the word unaccredited. I always thought that people were risking santions by using an unaccredited and unapproved degree period.

Maybe someone can straighten me out here, but that is the way I see it.

 

What "say" they'll have will be interesting. While it appears K-WU degrees will be legal for use in Oregon, it is the disclosure that is the killer. The other way, illegal for use but no disclosure, was actually better for K-WU graduates in Oregon. Non-disclosure of the true nature of K-WU is the biggest asset to its graduates. Recipients (like employers) don't know it isn't an unaccredited, substandard operation. But they will now.

Actually, the disclosure requirement is more detailed than that. I suspect, and my research corroborates, that such verbiage will scare off many employers. It puts a stink on earning and using degrees from schools like K-WU.

BTW, all that blather about Oregon recognizing the value of K-WU's degrees for mid-career adults is not only bull, but it comes from K-WU's attorneys, not the ODA.

I wish the disclosure requirement was nationwide and enforceable.

 

Depending on the context, this is a big win and a big lose for KWU.

It's a big win in that apparently now this degree mill can victimize residents of Oregon and people can no longer say that KWU degrees are illegal in Oregon (I hope that with the expected change it is made illegal for state employees to use these degrees.).

It's a big lose in that the KWU degrees probably have less utility now as long as the law is followed. On the other hand, if the law wasn't followed before then the degree could be used.

I would guess that KWU really doesn't care that the utility of their degrees are crippled. The people raking in the money at the top of the scam are probably very pleased. scum bags

 

Who is the winner ?

Let's vote on it Alan Contreras or KWU?

My opinion that I expressed in previous threads is that Alan had good goals but wrong ways to attain it and he blew it.

He shot too often from the hip in his commendable defense of academic integrity. The Oregon Law is totally imperfect, quasi unconstitutional (if not why changing it?) and worse, ODA did not respect any due process. Alan was acting like a proud knight at the beginning, to finish as an Ayatollah.

If somebody in this forum did not like an institution-school-university, surely the next day it was mentioned in the ODA infamous "Diploma Mill list", with absolutely no serious inquiry or verification, no control, no openess, no vote, no commission, no "Sunshine Law", no due process. His decisions were secret and arbitrary, which could be OK for a private citizen not for a regulatory agency of the United States.

If the State of Oregon settled, it was because their lawyers knew that they would loose

The slap in the face is definitely the anti-defamation courses for the ODA employees.

The winner is KWU not by KO or decision but by Oregon throwing the towel.




.

 

The triumph is mammoth for KWU, for the reason that;

1- KWU is going to be the co – creator of the new Law in Oregon.

2- KWU send ODA back to Law school (Law 101).

3- KWU use the services of Robert A. Shlachter, JD, of the Portland law firm Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, and by that, they send a full-size message to the others State officially authorized unaccredited institution of higher education.

4- The KWU case, is simply the inauguration of other Legal cases.

 

In this electronic page, is a brief description of Robert A. Shlachter, JD of Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter, the attorney of KWU.

http://www.legalspan.com/catalog2/faculty.asp?UserID=20031116535116153257&OwnerColor=

In addition, is this page, looks like Robert A. Shlachter, JD speak in a quantity of conferences
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~bioethic/nubc/speakers.html

 

Your um, unique use of English seems to be improving. I guess that USC Ph.D. had a latent effect.

As for K-WU vs. ODA, I'd give the first round to ODA. Yes, K-WU won the one thing I thought was indefensible, which was the list (and its placement on it). But the ODA won so much more. The disclosure requirement strips bare outfits like K-WU, revealing to all, not just readers of this board, what they really are: spurious.

 

That is accurate Dr. Rich Douglas; you demonstrated and confirmed that in your dissertation, the disclosure is going to have an little effect.

A CONTRARIO SENSU,the imperative thing is that at this instant, a human being in Oregon can utilize a degree of KWU.

In the ancient times in Oregon was a criminal act make use of a KWU degree (an unaccredited degree from a State officially authorized unaccredited institution of higher education), nevertheless, at this instant, an individual can use the degree and that, is an extremely large divergence.

 

Hmmm

K-W U (Unaccredited)

which perspective employers will see as

K-W U (Degree MIll)

Not much help for those poor K-W grads.

 

No, it is going to have a huge effect, if it comes to be. I can imagine few situations where telling someone your degree is from an unaccredited school will be perceived as a positive thing.

No way.

 

Re: Who is the winner ?

Nah. There are many reasons why they might decide not to fight it, least of which is that court cases are expensive. Add to that, an outcome that would have little interest to the citizens of Oregon (either way) and it seems easier to just settle.

This is so common that I'm a little surprised that you wouldn't know that. There are many cases where the large corporation pays off for a few thousand dollars because the case would cost 100k or more just to litigate. This happens every day.



Tom Nixon

 

With Due Process

Nevertheless, this not take place every day:

The State of Oregon's (Justice) acknowledgment that its law is

1- Unconstitutional

2- Infringe the constitutional rights of alumni by denying them their rights to due process.

3- Go against the rights of alumni by denying freedom of speech.

4- Violate the rights of former students by denying interstate commerce.

5- The enforcer of the Law needs to take some curriculum.

6-ODA officials are to refrain from making critical or disparaging comments about KWU in any public forum or to the media.

7- The supplicant (KWU) is going to be the Co- Author of the State Law

The point is simply, they necessitate to do the marvelous work with Due Process. If they implement a high-quality Due Process, they are going to be triumphant in a Court.

Learn by heart, with Due process. Due Process is that full-size dream and inspiration that many Americans, Immigrants and the people of the world want; that laws and legal proceedings must be fair.

Is so difficult to Oregon to implement fair laws and legal proceedings for the people?


http://www.lectlaw.com/def/d080.htm

http://www.kw.edu/news_sub6.asp?active=media

 

You will not like it..

But if it walks like a duck, quack like duck, etc.... In that case it looks like a defeat, it smells like a defeat, then it is a total defeat for ODA.

In that case the whole system of: Diploma Mill list with zero due process expolded in Oregon The State must amend or rewrite the Law with the 'help" of KWU . Is it a victory because Alan went too far.

I think that, for his own future, he should restrain from intervening in that forum. The "slap/kneecap" phrase is not glorifying for a State.

About the settlement lesson, we get from T. "Richard" Nixon. He was right, with the caveat that it is true for private enterprises, not for a State with a humungus budget and hundreds of paid State attorneys.

When a giant settle with a midget, the giant looses..

The great majority of the forum, INCLUDING ME, was sympathetic to Mr. Contreras ideas, then why not recognizing the truth:

He lost and we lost..."