News story re. hospital administrator with K-W degree

Did the ODA overreach or did Hardy Myers see an easy way out of a lawsuit that could consume quite of bit of cash before resolution? Will the legislature be willing to change the current law or will the lawsuit return proceed later? Unfortunately I think we are nearer the beginning than the end of this story.

 

ODA reaching resulted in the action sought by KWU. Coming to an agreement was in both parties interests given limited resources. The resulting agreement changed the status quo (no legal consequences for an unaccredited and/or unapproved degree holder to "use" their degree in Oregon as long as a disclosure is made). And it mandated a good faith effort be made on the part of the ODA to the legislature to correct the underlying statutes (not necessarily a particular outcome) or the suit will recommence.

The legislature may decline to act and we would be left with the current agreement. In any event, the ODA has been forced to modify its approach.

 

The disclosure requirement, if enforced, is key. My research clearly demonstrated that when employers find out about "state approved," "state licensed," and so forth, their willingness to accept degrees from such schools drops significantly.

Can you imagine the impression such a statement on a resume would leave with employers, many (most?) of whom don't understand accreditation. Our collective experience (as reflected in the thousands of posts on this board) has been that many people equate "unaccredited" with "diploma mill," even if it isn't true.

Of course, the proof will be in the pudding. Can Oregon enforce such disclosure requirements? And will employers be held financially liable for negligence by their employees who are subsequently discovered to hold these credentials? Interesting....

 

I have also found this to be true in many firms. As long as the HR Person can write down that "So-and-so has a Masters in Landfill Archaeology from Wankers State U.." he/she can then declare that person competent to hold the job that requires a Masters level (even though a dozen years ago, the same same job required a High School diploma.) Since that person met the published criteria for the position, if that person later fails in the job, the HR person will still get to keep his/her job.

 

Hi Rod

I disagree with your characterization of the agreement in that I believe Hardy Myers chose to settle. It was the low cost and easy way out and he chose that. As Rich points out the key to the current agreement is in how it is enforced. If unaccredited degree holders actually are required to fully disclose their unaccredited degree status, they aren't likely to mention it. If they are allowed to use the degree without disclosing the nature of it, the ODA clearly is not doing its job.

 

Dave, you may be right, I don't know. The docket before this agreement was bereft of cases that related to these statutes in spite of the severe language, so I expect there will be an even greater dearth of cases following. I speculate it will be too hard to effectively enforce these statutes except under the most egregious cases considering limited ODA resources, disclosure variables, and the lack of general understanding of these issues and legal awareness on the part of the public.