Oregon school definitions

The biggest problem that I forsee is ensuring that all the criteria are really being enforced.

The California Education Code sets out some impressive standards for state approved schools. But as Bill Huffman never tires in reminding us, the BPPVE isn't always effective in enforcing those standards. Some questionable schools continue to exist at the low end, despite standards that closely resemble your suggestions on paper.

That problem only grows if you extend your agreement overseas. What's to prevent an unscrupulous jurisdiction (a West African country, say) from posting some fine standards on its website, copied off some regional accreditor's site perhaps, and then blithely continuing to sell accreditations like nothing's changed?

 

I think that something needs to be said about academic rigor. We could take KWU and PWU as examples of lack of academic rigor. KWU lacks academic rigor based on the senate testimony that the undercover person passed two graduate classes with only 16 hours of study. She came up with a formula (which was also allegedly posted on the KWU forum) for passing the tests that would apparently allow her to to "succeed" at any KWU class with a similar effort and almost total absence of any real learning. I'm even more excited to use PWU as an example since I don't think that I'll ever tire of reminding people how horrible and meaningless California approval is when they allow an organization such as PWU to claim California Approval. PWU has a similar easy out method to their tests that the PWU representative was excited to point out to the undercover TV journalist.

 

I don't think false information should be put out either pro or con KWU.

I can say that a couple of my exams probably could have been passed by using the method described by the Lt. Commander in her testimony. But, the other 4 exams could not have been passed without knowing the material thoroughly. Of course these were EE courses with a lot of technical mathematics and formulas. I can't speak for the other majors, but that does not change the fact that a student chooses which courses they take after the magic number is given from KWU admissions. I guess if you choose a subject that you already know a lot about then you could probably get by pretty easily.

These are some of the things that KWU is going to have to change if they ever want to be seen as credible.

 

This is untrue. You also reported this last year to John Bear who repeated your findings here in 2003. I believe you also promoted this same myth recently in public statements to the Collins' Senate Committee that was convened to hear various testimony. Unfortunately, your statements were reported and the myth was perpetuated. IMO, as a State official, you should become more familiar with the laws you cite as references.

The following was presented by David Boyd on this forum July 2003.


2003 Bill Text ND H.B. 1068

VERSION: Enacted

VERSION-DATE: April 14, 2003

SYNOPSIS: AN ACT to create and enact three new sections to chapter 15-20.4 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the issuance, manufacture, and use of false academic degrees or certificates; and to provide a penalty.

TEXT: BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:

SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 15-20.4 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

Unlawful to issue, manufacture, or use false academic degrees - Penalty.

1. It is unlawful for a person to knowingly issue or manufacture a false academic degree. A person that violates this subsection is guilty of a class C felony.

2. a. It is unlawful for an individual to knowingly use or claim to have a false academic degree:

(1) To obtain employment;

(2) To obtain a promotion of higher compensation in employment;

(3) To obtain admission to an institution of higher learning; or

(4) In connection with any business, trade, profession, or occupation.

b. An individual who violates this subsection is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

3. As used in this section, "false academic degree" means a document such as a degree or certification of completion of a degree, coursework, or degree credit, including a transcript, that provides evidence or demonstrates completion of a course of instruction or coursework that results in the attainment of a rank or level of associate or higher which is issued by a person that is not a duly authorized institution of higher learning.

4. As used in this section, "duly authorized institution of higher learning" means an institution that:

a. Has accreditation recognized by the United States secretary of education or has the foreign equivalent of such accreditation;

b. Has an authorization to operate under this chapter;

c. Operates in this state and is exempt from this chapter under section 15-20.4-02;

d. Does not operate in this state and is:

(1) Licensed by the appropriate state agency; and

(2) An active applicant for accreditation by an accrediting body recognized by the United States secretary of education; or

e. Has been found by the state board for career and technical education to meet standards of academic quality comparable to those of an institution located in the United States that has accreditation recognized by the United States secretary of education to offer degrees of the type and level claimed.

SECTION 2. A new section to chapter 15-20.4 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

Unlawful to use degree or certificate when coursework not completed - Penalty.

1. An individual may not knowingly use a degree, certificate, diploma, transcript, or other document purporting to indicate that the individual has completed an organized program of study or completed courses when the individual has not completed the organized program of study or the courses as indicated on the degree, certificate, diploma, transcript, or document:

a. To obtain employment;

b. To obtain a promotion or higher compensation in employment;

c. To obtain admission to an institution of higher learning; or

d. In connection with any business, trade, profession, or occupation.

2. An individual who violates this section is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.

SECTION 3. A new section to chapter 15-20.4 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows:

Consumer protection - False academic degrees. The state board for career and technical education, in collaboration with the North Dakota university system, shall provide via internet web sites, information to protect students, businesses, and others from persons that issue, manufacture, or use false academic degrees.

 

Whoa, there, big fella!

Not so fast, Kirkland. You may be right for all I know, but what you are citing doesn't prove it, either way. What you've cited isn't law. Only statutues are law. You've cited the bill that was passed by the legislature and signed by the governor and from which the language which ultimately became law got chapted into the statute.

Anywhere along the line from when a bill is first introduced, to when it is sent to committee, to when it is negotiated and renegotiated, to when it is debated on the chamber floor, to when it is sent back to committee, to when it is debated again and then voted on and passed, and then even as it's on its way to the governor's office for signing, its words can be changed again and again and again (and again). One never knows precisely what version of a bill one has or, more importantly, whether it's precisely what the governor eventually actually signed.

Also -- and perhaps most importantly -- whenever one cites a bill, one is getting an incomplete picture, bereft of context. In a bill, only the revisions, deletions or additions to law are shown -- completely out of context because the rest of the statute into which the bill's language will be introduced is missing (from said bill). The language of the bill might appear to say a certain thing, but existing language already in the statute (and which, therefore, doesn't appear in the bill) might say that the language of the part of the statute into which the words of the bill are to be introduced is only applicable law for... oh, let's say... people whose left eyes are green... and only on first and third Tuesdays... and only in odd-numbered months beginning with "M" during leap years in even-numbered centuries.

Go back to that state's web site and search the statutes, not the bills and resolutions used to create them. Read the law, not the initiating documents.

Only a reading of the statute, not a bill, will determine whether you will be coming back here in a few days to either report to us that, bill or no bill, you were right after all...

...or to apologize to Mr. Contreras.

 

Interesting bit of information, thanks for setting the record straight.

 

Re: Whoa, there, big fella!

What I have cited is apparently the text of the bill that has been enacted into law, which casts a serious shadow on the veracity of the statement made by Mr. Contreras. I would be highly surprised if what was enacted was materially changed in statute. Since this information is public, I invite any other interested person, including yourself or Mr. Contreras, to look into the matter further and report on the accuracy of Mr. Contreras' statement. I'll look into it further and will be happy to report my findings when I get sufficient time.

 

Re: Re: Oregon school definitions

Perhaps this is a good reason for either the ODA investing in the process of making the classifications accurate or dropping the classification system entirely. Foreign entities have no way of knowing whether ODA classification system is accurate. However, the legality of the degrees for use in Oregon might be an good indicator of the quality of the degree for use outside Oregon; listing legal degrees seems reasonable.

Dave

 

various Oregon responses

I have sent an inquiry to my colleague in North Dakota this morning asking for a clarification of their penalties. I may have been misinformed (our information came from ND last year), and in any event I'll post the response. I make no pretense of perfection and will gladly correct any goobers.

To the question about foreign governments setting up paper "standards" and then not applying them, that is why we require the degree supplier to provide a copy of its application for approval, a copy of the actual evaluation done by the approving agency, and the names and contact information for the reviewers.

This will not catch every fish, but it helps a lot. For example, both Oregon and Texas state officials have asked St. Kitts for this information (in our case, three times in four years) and for some reason it just never comes, can't think why. Texas asked for the names of the evaluators and was told that these names are always secret and can't be released! Right.

Extremely helpful responses about standards.

Within the next couple of weeks we will replace our "code column" with an expanded comment and link section. The transition and in-fill will take a while, so give us some slack and then whack us in August if there are problems.

On the question of criminal penalties for use of a fake degree, our policy is that these penalties will never be requested unless the degree has been used in a way that damages public health or safety. I'd be interested in hearing whether people think that ANY criminal penalty is always wrong or whether criminal penalties for public health or safety are ok.

Something for Gregg to gnaw on in his spare time.

 

Re: various Oregon responses

This is the ND statute located on the ODA website, no less:

http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/oregon_north_dakota/index_or.html#northdakota

 

Re: Whoa, there, big fella!

[sigh]

You know, no matter how many times (or in how many different ways) you repeat it, it still won't suddenly make it so. You seem to have chosen to ignore, or for whatever reason simply refused to grasp, the most important part of what I was trying to convey in my earlier message which explains why what you've cited fails to document your claim, to wit:

The language of the bill may very well have been precisely what eventually got chaptered into statute. However, a bill (or resolution) -- even if its language accurately reflects what eventually became law -- is bereft of the essential context needed to properly interpret and apply it because it does not show the other language which either may have already existed in the statute, or which may have been added since (pursuant to other bills), and which modifies the bill's language, or affects the circumstances of its applicability, or otherwise denudes it of its effectiveness altogether. Only a proper reading of the statute as it exists today, not the bill which created it over a year ago, and including all context which helps us understand its applicability, will either prove or disprove your assertion. Simple as that.

You don't want to be in the company of those who quote bills as law. Spammers quote bills as law... or have you never gotten a spam which said the following at or near its bottom?

As originally introduced, U.S. Senate Bill S.1618 sought to amend the Federal Telecommunications Act to prohibit the practice of "slamming" (changing the long distance telephone carrier of a consumer without that consumer's permission). In a clever procedural move, Senators Murkowski and Torricelli introduced language which became "Title III" of that bill just moments before the whole bill was passed by the U.S. Senate by unanimous voice vote. But the House version (H.R.3888) was never passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and so the entire matter died for lack of action at the end of the 1998's 105th Congressional Session.

But spammers didn't let a little thing like that stop 'em... oh, no! They referred to S.1618 at the bottoms of millions upon millions of spams as if it were law for the longest time -- some still do. And, no doubt, some recipients were intitmated by it... just as you appear to be trying to intimidate the readers here by quoting your bill -- which may or may not actually be law at this point, and which you did not see fit to go and verify before becoming defensive about it.

In the case of S.1618, it wasn't law then; it isn't law now; and it will never, ever be law... ever, ever, ever! But quoting it sure made those sly spammers sound like they knew what the heck they were talking about, didn't it?

Bills are not law. Statutes are law. Never quote bills as law unless you want to look like a fool... or a spammer. (Hey... that's redundant, isn't it?)

One needn't even go to law school to know that. I'm pretty sure it's Business Law 101 at most U.S. universities...

...and I'm pretty sure even at most beauty colleges, massage schools and truck driving institutes.

 

Gregg,

you mean:

"State Laws
ND Century Code is the official codification of all general and permanent law enacted since statehood and in limited instances includes temporary laws.

State Constitution and Code provides the information to access the text of the Constitution of North Dakota, current version of the Century Code, and a link to the code publisher.

Session Laws provides the links to the 2003, 2001, 1999, and 1997 Session Laws."

http://www.state.nd.us/lr/cencode/t15c204.pdf

My Powerpoint certificate is a little rusty but I read this as stating manufacture is a felony and the and use/claim of a fake degree is a misdemeanor, pp 5-6.

My advice to Mr. Contreras is to update his site to reflect an appropriate link to the law or to stick to dealing with Oregon. One would hate to be considered a spammer.

I am enjoying the position you are providing but discourse can be more beneficial if facts are presented rather than providing us with commentary on Business 101. You were doing fine until your last comment. There is at least one PhD on this forum who does in fact, drive a truck. I look forward to your position on the North Dakota law.

Did someone mention an apology?

Regards,

 

Re: Re: Whoa, there, big fella!

...I presented a copy of the ND statute (from the ODA website) which substantiates my position, and it was posted hours before your wrote this stuff. Guess you failed to read it. Any further comment?

 

Re: Re: Whoa, there, big fella!

So were you the one that told my wife and kids that Bill is not the law?

-Bill

 

California has excellent state-approved/licensed criteria easily worthy of Oregon's acceptance. The problem is that California has some enforcement problems which, of course, shouldn't be acceptable to Oregon.

And, yes, PWU is stinky -- as Col. Flagg in an old M*A*S*H episode once said, "this [in this case, PWU] fish stinks from the head down!"

But the solution is not (or should not be) for Oregon to summarily reject, out of hand, all of California's many excellent state-approved but not regionally accredited (or not accredited by any other CHEA-approved agency) schools because of it.

Rather, Oregon should decide to either accept or reject California's licensing/approval standards for degree-granting institutions which are not also accredited by a CHEA-approved agency. Then, assuming it accepts them (because, after all, the "one bad apple" principle certainly doesn't apply in such cases) Oregon should summarily accept all California schools which are BPPVE licensed/approved to grant degrees -- at least initially. Then, if there is clear and convincing evidence that one or more of said schools somehow slipped past California's inspections folks and is "stinky," (such as PWU), at that point Oregon should specifically reject it for provable cause which can then be shown as the reason alongside PWU's listing on Oregon's web site's "unacceptable/illegal schools" list.

That, believe it or not, is not only an easier way of doing things (i.e., will save Oregon countless hours of investigating individual out-of-state institutions whenever a degree-holder presents credentials from one of them for use in its state), but it will also not put Oregon's entire statute in jeopardy of being overturned altogether by a thoughtful and courageous judge who is troubled by the criminalization aspect of Oregon's statute and the apparent lack, therein, of the kind of rigid statutory construction that any law with criminal consequences absolutely requires; and who has a soft spot in her heart for the Consitution and doesn't like, therefore, the facts that:

1) Oregon's enforcement methodology begins with its issuance to an unaccredited degree-holder who dared to list her degree on her resume used in Oregon of what is, in effect, an intentially intimidateing "Order to Show Cause" why her credential should not be considered illegal for use in that state; and threatening to prosecute her criminally if she cannot satisfy said show-cause order by adequately defending said credential by proving to the ODA that it is not sub-standard or from a diploma mill; and,

2) Oregon's standards to which said unaccredited degree holder and potential defendant must compare her credential in order to avoid criminal prosecution are subjective, dynamic, inadequently documented and, in any case, not chaptered in statute and are, therefore, insufficiently publicly noticed so that any reasonable person may know said standards and may, therefore, reasonably avoid prosecution (or its threat) before presenting his/her degree for use in that state; and,

3) Oregon's methodology presumes, facially, that the unaccredited degree-holder and potential defendant is already guilty and imposes upon her the burden of proving otherwise in order to avoid prosecution in the first place -- which is precisely the opposite of how our criminal justice system, as a nation, is constructed, and is one of the clearest and most compelling prima facia violations of her Constitutional rights that I have seen in decades; and,

4) Oregon's methodology imposes upon the unaccredited degree-holder and potential defendant the financial burden of investigating her own credential and establishing that it meets that state's standards in order to be used therein, thereby creating -- howsoever unintentionally -- an effective punishment before she has even been convicted of anything; said effective punishment being a punishment-in-fact because of her inability to refuse said burden due to the promise of criminal prosecution if she does so; and,

5) Oregon's methodology imposes upon the unaccredited degree-holder and potential defendant no choice but to divulge to that state's enforcement officials, as part of her argument that her credential is worthy of acceptance in that state and pursuant to her burden of showing cause why she should not be prosecuted for having so presented it, details of her credential and the institution that granted it, as well as her intentions by seeking said credential and subsequently presenting it for use within that state, which may amount to statements made against self-interest should she be unsuccessful and the matter proceeds to criminal prosecution; said statements amounting to a violation of her Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and not to incriminate herself as established nearly four decades ago in MIRANDA v. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).


And I'm just warmin' up.

In the name of trying to save an under-staffed, under-funded Oregon ODA the time, trouble and expense of investigating, researching and verifying unaccredited credentials that happen to cross its borders, it wrongly places that burden, instead, back onto the degree-holder herself. That, in and of itself, would not be such a serious Consitutional rights issue if the only penalties for proffering bogus degrees in that state were civil in nature. But the spectre of criminal prosecution and the potential for loss of liberty and the establishment of a criminal record (albeit a minor misdemeanor one) changes manifestly the stakes. In effect, Oregon is asking the potential defendant to investigate and build its case against her for them. What's wrong with that picture?

And it's impractical -- ne, stupid -- in any case! No prosecutor who expects to still have his Bar card in his wallet when it's all overwith would ever file charges against the bogus degree-holder until an investigator from the presecutor's office had thoroughly researched her degree and the institution that issued it in order to make sure that, in fact, the degree was bogus. If so, then all the money that Oregon was trying to save itself by not having to investigate and verify credentials it ends-up having to spend anyway, doesn't it? The whole point of structuring the statute so that the burden of proving her degree's validity is placed upon the degree-holder is lost.

In fact, because of this, any unaccredited degree holder who is confident that her credential would stand-up to Oregon's scrutiny and would ultimately be accepted as "legal" in that state should simply ignore Oregon's law and put her degree on her resume and present it to whomever she wants in Oregon and, in effect, figuratively flip Oregon the bird.

If she later receives a letter from the ODA demanding that she show cause why she should not be prosecuted, she shouldn't even answer -- or if she does, she should say, in effect: "Hey, bite me! It's not my job to help you prosecute me. If you believe I've broken your law, then do your damned job and prove it... make your case... either charge me or shut the hell up!"

And she would be completely within her Consitutional rights to do so.

Oregon is doing it backwards. Simple as that. And by so doing, it is flying in the face of the United States Consitution and the Bill of Rights in the way that it has crminalized the use of unaccredited degrees in its state.

It is also violating -- at least the spirit -- the clear and unambiguous intent of the "full faith and credit" clause of the United States Consitution as set forth therein in Article IV, Section 1. I realize that Mr. Contreras has said earlier in this thread that Oregon's legal counsel assured the state that it wasn't violating the full faith and credit clause, but I assure you, Oregon was mislead.

A court of is said to have ruled that Oregon is safe to establish as its gold standard CHEA-approved accreditation. Because there's nothing wishy-washy about that standard and it's easy to codify it on paper and, therefore, to ensure that all citizens are properly notified of the line across which they dare not step lest they risk prosecution, the Consitutional "notice" problem would go away if Oregon would just stop with CHEA-approved accreditation and be done with it.

Of course, no one would stand for that. There are, after all, too many credible unaccredited institutions whose credentials Oregonians would insist on being able to use within their state's borders. But by trying to make exceptions to the CHEA-approved gold standard in the way that Oregon has been doing it so far, the state makes sloppy and unwieldy (and unconstitutional) that which could easily be made neat and clean by Oregon's simply bothering to sit down and create a written standard for what kind of unaccredited degrees it will accept.

But nothing short of rotating the situation around 180 degrees by materially changing the statute will fix the problem of threatening an unaccredited degree-holder with prosecution and then, with the spectre of that held over her head, soliciting (by force) the prospective defendant to investigate herself and to then disclose the results of said investigation to the ODA so it can then use it all against her criminally if she fails to make the grade.

Change your law, Oregon, or I fear somehow, someday, we'll be arguing this before your Supreme Court...

...or worse.

 

Kevin (Fed) and Kirkland,

It's late and I need some sleep and I'm as tired of writing this crap as I'm sure you are of reading it, but I wanted to at least say this: Neither of your most recent posts changes a single thing that I wrote. I never said one way or another what North Dakota's law was or wasn't, or is or isn't, or who was right or wrong about that part of it. All I was saying -- and this is now the third time I'm having to say it because it just doesn't seem to be sinking in with at least some folks -- is that it is categorically wrong to cite a bill when the only authoritative source of law is the statute. Period. I don't need to apologize to anyone for making that point.

And since I drove a truck myself every summer during college and once when I was in a bind thereafter, I don't have to apologize for that either. That having been said, I now wish I'd left off that entire last flip remark in that posting -- for more reasons than just whether or not I offended PhD-owning truck drivers.

And to Bill Huffman: I reserve my right under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States not to answer that question out of concern that it may appear, or may in fact tend, to incriminate me. And, anyway, your wife promised she'd never tell you it was me. [kidding]

'night.

 

Gregg,

"Only a reading of the statute, not a bill, will determine whether you will be coming back here in a few days to either report to us that, bill or no bill, you were right after all...

...or to apologize to Mr. Contreras."

Your quote. The statute was provided. ND states that this is the official codification of the law. Regardless, I would hope that Mr. Contreras would rescind his comment on the "felony" issue and apologize accordingly (not you).

Categorically, I support your position. I am interested in seeing how Oregon intends to enforce this law. More importantly I will be interested in seeing what happens when a public figure, or state employee, or educator, comes to light with an unaccredited or bogus degree.

I will bet, that it will play out just like the feds (as in where I work).

Power and politics will decide the action.

Tough job Mr. Contreras, thanks for at least bringing the issue to the forefront.

 

The quality of the higher education system in the USA is ensured by and based on accreditation. If someone ventures outside this system for an education then they are outside the norm. It seems reasonable to me to expect that someone doing this to carry some mild burden. For example, if I build my own airplane, I think it would be reasonable to require me to pay an additional inspection fee before I could get the plane licensed. This would be to protect the common welfare and good. Afterall, when Cesna is designing a new model they could reasonably be asked by the state to pass an inspection before the model goes into production. This is similar to an accreditation agency inspecting an educational institution. It would seem to me that an unaccredited degree could be considered analogous to the home made airplane situation where the owner is required to do extra to prove that his homemade plane is safe and air worthy?

 

Oregon on June 28, 2004 approved use of degrees from the Western Institute for Social Research, an unaccredited California degree-granter. It will be added to our web list of approved unaccredited schools.

 

The problem with that suggestion is that it would allow any number of unknown substandard degrees to be used in Oregon if the ODA was either unaware of their deficiencies or unable to document them. That in turn would subvert the intent of the statute.

Anyone who violates a law may have an unpleasant contact with the authorities. Oregon law makes it illegal to use degrees without recognized accreditation in the state of OR. The law also allows individuals to apply for exemptions by providing (or having their school provide) evidence that the program is equivalent to what OR would approve in-state.

The easiest way to avoid the danger of prosecution would be to cease and desist in using the degree, wouldn't it?

I'm not sure that's accurate. Oregon's own in-state approval standards are published. Besides, state regulators are not forbidden from using their own judgement nor must every requirement be spelled out in minute detail. State bar exams aren't paint by numbers.

The individual using a non-accredited degree is in apparent violation of the law. The individual is given the opportunity to either stop violating it or to seek an exemption. If he or she doesn't cooperate, the state has the option of taking him or her to court, where he or she would have every right to due process.

The law outlaws the use of unaccredited degrees. If an individual wants to use a non-accredited degree, he or she needs to satisfy Oregon that the degree meets Oregon standards. Obeying the law isn't a punishment.

That's a pretty tortured argument.

I don't se how the degree holder's motivations are relevant. (They might be if he or she intended to use the degree in a licensed or regulated profession, but that's not really the issue here.) I fail to see how one could incriminate one's-self by requesting an exemption to a law prohibiting the use of non-accredited degrees. The worst result is that the petitioner would fail, and that would leave them where they started, with the choice either to obey the statute by no longer using the non-accredited degree or face the however remote possibility of enforcement action.

The law outlaws the use of non-accredited degrees. There's no need to prove bogosity.

I believe that you are the one who's been suggesting that the state of Oregon issue blanket approvals to all institutions in entire states and then try to weed out the bad apples. So your arguments here citing the additional investigative burden of proving bogosity are effectively arguments against your own suggestion.