Oregon school definitions

The standards that an applicant for degree validation must meet are not in statute but they are in the commission's adopted rules refered to in statute and are available both via our agency web site and on the Secretary of State's web site.

When we send a cease and desist letter, it is accompanied by a two-page description of how to apply for approval, referring to the standards and how to find them. Thus anyone who gets the zap letter is also told how to meet the law's standards by providing information about the school.

So far we have had five complete applications for review. Four have been successful, which seems to show that the process works.

It is unrealistic to expect a state to declare that anything with a pulse is actually a legitimate college unless we can prove it is not one. The question of what is or is not a degree and what is or is not a college is solely under the authority of state law except for a few special situations such as the military academies, tribal colleges etc. Each state has different laws.

There is no "right" to establish a degree granting institution. There is no "right" to use any piece of paper labeled "degree" as a credential. Some people wish it were true. Most don't.

 

Multiple Oregon approving agencies?

It appears to me that there may be several Oregon agencies with the power to approve degrees. For example, in the case of professional engineers, Oregon statutes give the Oregon State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying the authority to approve engineering and land surveying programs.

"672.097 Qualifications for engineering examination; rules; form of examination. (1) As minimum evidence of qualification for the fundamentals in engineering examination, an applicant shall provide evidence of graduation in an approved engineering curriculum of four years or more from a school or college approved by the State Board of Examiners for Engineering and Land Surveying."

I suspect these approvals are given to degrees that would easily meet the ODA's requirements. Nevertheless, I beleive any rules issued by the ODA should explicitly state that any degree recognized by any Oregon professional board is legal for use in Oregon, and if possible, any list of approved degrees should include any university that has been approved by an Oregon professional board.

Gerry Ashton
Professional Engineer in Vermont

 

RE: Professional Societies.. Even RA schools are not all created equal. One example: I had to re-take Calculus when I transferred schools as the first course I took was not "ABET."

 

The question of whether professional licensing board statutes supersede the basic degree validity statute is one that we are working on. It is extremely complex because some licensing boards intentionally want to fall within the ODA blanket and a couple want to get out from under it. This package of issues will be addressed by the legislature next year.

 

Regarding the SCUPS claims in Asia, I will contact the entity and let them know that they need to stop making false claims about their ODA approval status, if that is what they are doing. They won't like what happens if they keep it up. Hell hath no fury like a bureaucrat scorned.

For the record, no SCUPS degree has ODA approval except the PhD in Psychology as structured to meet California state licensing requirements.

On to ornithology.

Corvus brachyrhynchos, a.k.a. Crow, American. Recipes wanted for use at ODA. You folks are right and I was wrong about the North Dakota law. Issuing an unaccredited degree is a felony, using one is a misdemeanor according to state of ND. I have sent corrections to a few places where I know I gave the wrong information, including the Chronicle of Higher Education and Sen. Collins' staff. Thank you for calling this problem to my attention.

Our revised web site should be up next week.

 

Alan,

a notable correction. Kudos.

Regards,

 

Thanks for closing the loop but let's be clear about this so that the problem isn't compounded by your clarification; manufacture or use of a "false academic degree" is a felony in ND. It would be wrong to use the phrase "unaccredited degree". There are acceptable circumstances related to issuing and using unaccredited degrees in ND e.g. if school is approved by relevant state agency and is an applicant for accreditation or the school is approved by ND.

 

This is true in Oregon and New Jersey as well, though I understand that New Jersey law requires that the school be actively seeking accreditation in order to be allowed by the state, while Oregon can approve schools that are not seeking accreditation. I am not sure how the Indiana doctorate law handles evaluation of unaccredited schools. I don't have NJ or IN law handy so should learn from recent experience and not say what's in it and get it wrong.

 

Now I'm correcting myself... This should have said manufacture or issue of a "false academic degree" is a felony in ND. Use is a misdemeanor.

 

To the reader: Unfortunately, following this dialog between me and Bill Dayson may be difficult because each of his quoted items, below, are responses to quoted items from my earlier posting, yet for the sake of brevity (to the degree to which that can even be achieved, here) I'm only quoting, below, Dayson's words. To get the big picture, one may need to go back to the previous pageful of posts and read Dayson's to me before coming back here and reading this one...

Only briefly. I'm merely prescribing a starting point. Pursuant to Oregon's constitutional requirement to honor the full faith and credit clause, it should choose as its starting point that it will allow any degree from any unaccredited out-of-state institution which, nevertheless, has the imprimatur of its state government as evidenced by its having been licensed as a degree-granting institution thereby. Unfortunately, some state governments will license almost anyone with a pulse to grant degrees. Understood. But there are only 50 states. A one-armed monkey could figure out in a mere week or two's worth of investigation which states' licenses aren't worth the powder it would take to blow them up; and, same having once been established, Oregon could merely refuse to honor any degrees from unaccredited but nevertheless state-licensed institutions in that state pending individual, institution/degree-specific review. By so doing, Oregon will be using a somewhat more systematic approach than it has used thus far.

So any law, by virtue of its own existence, is just, is that what you're saying? It's the law so those who violate it -- even if it's unjust -- should not be surprised by how unpleasant it is. That's right-winged, law-and-order, America-love-it-or-leave-it rhetoric.

Stop right there. First, let's define "recognized," for the reader: CHEA-approved accreditation. Oregon's law makes that its gold standard, and Oregon further says that a judge has told the state it's on firm legal ground by so doing. Indeed, from a purely civil rights standpoint, Oregon would be on far firmer ground if it went with that gold standard and stopped right there, not trying to effectively muddy the waters by allowing exceptions. But, alas, too many Oregonians want their unaccredited but state-approved degrees recognized -- many of which degrees end-up being quite acceptable to Oregon once investigated. So exceptions it must allow, and it's the methodology of that, considering the dire criminal consequences for those who don't comply with the state's less-than-firm requirements, with which I take issue.

Were the consequences for failure not criminal, we would not be having this debate. But Oregon chose to raise the bar to the point where liberty is in jeopardy for those who fail to obtain said exemptions. That being the case, a completely different set of rules for how the state notifies the citizenry of the path it must take to avoid prosecution applies. That's missing here.

Again with the "it's a law, so it must be just" attitude. Thank God for the ACLU, or people with that kind of attitude would have us living in tyranny by now. Legislatures make mistakes; or, worse, don't and, thereby, create intentionally unjust laws that are, therefore, constitutionally reckless... like the Patriot Act, for example, just to name one.

Yes, it is accurate.

And, yes, minute details, to the degree possible, must be spelled-out -- if not in statute, then in published agency rules and regulations which are empowered by statute. That's how agencies like the FCC, for example, work.

State regulators absolutely are forbidden from using their own judgement when said judgement strays too far afield from the intent of the law; and without rules, regulations and standards that are written down the regulator has nothing on which to base his/her "judgements." By definition, that's unconsitutional because there is no notice; no guidance to which the citizen may turn in order to know how he/she should behave. That's why people arrested today for crimes committed 30 years ago must be prosecuted and sentenced based on the law as it existed back when the crime was committed. In criminal matters, the law may only hold the citizen accountable for that of which he/she was adequately notified.

And, finally, state bar exams actually are quite "paint-by-numbers" in the sense that most of them use the same standardized exam (constantly updated and different versions at different times, obviously), and typically only add a small state-specific quenstion/answer and/or essay section of their own. But in any case, the precise rules and regulations by which one must guide oneself and to which one must adhere in order to become an attorney is clearly and minutely spelled-out in statute and/or statutorily-empowered rules and regulations. There is absolutely no[/b] ambiguity whatsoever -- none -- about what is required of a man or woman to become a member of every single Bar in this country. Moreover, because legislators tend to be lawyers, and because lawyers take care of their own bars or committees of bar examinors like no other entities over which they have jurisdiction, bar requirements are typically about as "paint-by-numbers" as it gets. Few things in law are spelled-out more anally-retentively than Bar membership requirements.

Criminalization cannot be at the whim of enforcement authorities, else it be capricious. Enforcement discretion (the choice by law enforcement not to arrest or, having once arrested, not to prosecute) cannot be used as a tool to encourage compliance. A thing either is illegal or it's not, and an arrest either is imminent as a result or it's not. A law which say you might or might not be prosecuted starts out on the wrong foot. A law that requires the accused or potentially-accused to prove herself not guilty in order to avoid prosecution in the first place deprives her of her right to simply remain silent and to force the state to prosecute if it has a case or to leave her alone. You seem to be prescribing a state of things which our Constitution and Bill of Rights expressly prohibits. It's a little unsettling, to be candid.

Just because she will eventually get her day in court does not mean she will get due process. If that were the case, there would be no need for probable cause or any concerns about prejudice. Along the way to bringing her to court, the state must play by certain rules which she has the right to know so she can play by them, too. "Due process" does not simply refer to one's day in court. That's way it's called a "process." Everything leading up to that day must be just and lawful or due process, even if one gets one's day in court, is denied.[/quote][/b]

Nearing the 10K character-per-posting limit. Continued in next posting...

 

May we have a URL, please?

Please don't be angry with me for my beating these points as I'm doing. I'm only trying to make this whole thing better while it's still in its relative infancy and before other states start copying, as states so often do. If by "meet the law's standards by providing information about the school," you mean providing information in order to simply and merely get the degree approved, then I know it seems like that should be good enough and that it adequately protects against abuse. But it's arbitrary and discretionary. By the time the "zap" letter is sent, as you described the law and your office's enforcement thereof, the crime has already been committed. At that point it feels like the state is saying (or at least has the ability to say... and that's really what's more important) that if you cannot come forth with evidence that we're wrong to "zap" you, then you face criminal charges. At that point I would counsel the degree-holder to zip it and say nothing. Only if the attorney general's office issued her a written promise that she would not be prosecuted if she tried but failed to be show her degree wasn't illegal would I ever permit her to even reply to your "zap" letter, much less attempt to convince you she hadn't broken any laws. And that's one of the ways in which I'm arguing that Oregon's methodology is lacking in workable procedural and logistical practicality.

Were that it were that simple.

I, at least, am not suggesting such a thing. I'm suggesting, simpy, that Oregon's starting point be that it fulfill its obligations under the full faith and credit clause to initially honor the imprimatur of other states facially, unless good and reasonable cause can be shown why it should not be so. Then establish a standard against which all other state licensing schemes may be compared. Then simply reject all unaccredited but state-licensed degrees from all states -- an entire state's worth of institutions and their degrees at a time -- which do not meet your standard, unless good and reasonable cause can be shown why it should not be so for any given degree and/or its institution. It gets you to the same place you want to be at, but it does so in a systematic and documentable way that demonstrates that the state's approach was both constitutional and (largely by virtue of its having established a standard) adequately noticed. But, more importantly, it eliminates your having to investigate any degrees and really does permit you to shift the investigative burden back onto the degree holder in some measure. It's actually much less work for you, in the long-run, than trying to build lists of schools that are exceptional and, therefore, approved; or lists of diploma mills, etc.

As we're continuing in this thread, I begin to realize what it is that I've got in my mind and which I'm assuming everyone else realizes... but, as it turns out, perhaps they don't. And for that, I apologize. As long as any of it is codified, much of that which I fear most about all of this is mitigated. It's the procedures for making exceptions, and how murky and potentially dengerous for the applicant it can become due almost entirely to the spectre of prosecution. Because of that, I argue that Oregon's approach needs to be modified so that civil liberties are not trampled on.

No one, least of all me, has ever argued that there were such rights. But a degree-holder from an unaccredited institution licensed by her state to grant degrees has a reasonable expectation that she may present her degree for consideration in Oregon without fearing that it will be considered a criminal act by virtue of the full faith and credit clause. The full faith and credit clause is why your driver's license is valid for use in all 50 of the other states. Use of degrees in your state from licensed institutions in other states should be the sort of default starting point. Not the ultimate place where you'll end-up, mind you, but at least the starting point.

Thereafter, you may certainly lawfully establish standards in your state which subsequently make the licensed credentials issued by institutions in other states illegal for use in yours, but if so then you must start being very specific about what is and isn't legal so that the citizenry may be adequately notified. There should be no need for applications for exeptions, exemptions or approvals. A thing either is illegal or it's not, and it should be spelled-out so clearly in statute or in regulation authorized and referred to by statute that no reasonable person may argue ambiguity and, therefore, unlawfulness. A person's liberty cannot be at the mercy of an administrative judgement based in largest measure on the subjectivity of the administrator.

It seems a judge has ruled that Oregon may declare all degrees which are not accredited by CHEA-approved agencies as illegal for use in that state. If that's where Oregon wants to stop, then all of this debating is moot. But Oregon chooses to venture into the murky waters of case-by-case exceptions. That, too, would not be so bad except that Oregon won't permit one to proffer her credential as exceptional and, therefore, legal, without also risking criminal prosecution. Once the possible use of handcuffs attaches, everything changes and things like subjectivity and capriciousness suddenly become critical and pivotal issues.

To avoid capriciousness or arbitrary and subjective administrative rulings which cannot, by definition, be equally applied to all persons, and the criteria of which cannot be noticed in advanced to the citizenry so that it may know how to avoid prosecution, Oregon must stop accepting applications for approval on a case-by-case basis. Instead, it must establish clear-cut minimum standards against which all unaccredited institutions are judged and then it should publish them right in the statute or in rules and regulations that are equally easy to find. Thereafter, applications for exception aren't even necessary. Res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself). This sort of situation is where that legal maxim came from in the first place. Oregon's rules must speak for themselves. There should not be an application process. Whether a degree is legal for use in Oregon should be something any citizen can see by interrogating statute and/or statutorily-sanctioned, published administrative regulatory language. Only then does Oregon have a prayer of criminalizing the acts of those who fail to comply in any manner which even remotely approaches being Constitutional. From my understanding of things (and if I'm wrong, then so be it and I'll be the first to confess it), Oregon's standards -- even the ones to which you refer in the first paragraph of your posting to which I'm responding now -- are not sufficiently well developed to stand-up to the sort of Constitutional scrutiny I'm advocating here.

 

A couple of points to keep the discussion useful through fact-straightening:

Oregon statute does not use CHEA recognition, it uses recognition by the U.S. Department of Education. We sometimes mention CHEA recognition as though it were the same thing but in fact there are some CHEA accreditors (e.g. AACSB, one of the major business-school accreditors) that are not federally recognized.

Also, I think I mentioned a while back that in the opinion of our legal counsel the full faith and credit clause does not apply to degrees issued by private colleges. Gregg and others may disagree, but we are operating the way our lawyer thinks we should.

In my view the FFC clause is a stronger argument with regard to degrees issued by colleges owned by states, e.g. U of Illinois, U of Oregon, because it is in effect the state issuing the degree.

 

I forgot to comment on what I consider one of Gregg's key issues (please correct me if I misunderstand it).

I think part of our discussion has to do with differing perceptions of the legitimacy of professional judgment in an evaluative setting. I see Gregg's approach as a more "mechanical" process though which we only look at categories, never at schools themselves. Oregon's process allows for the exercise of professional judgment in evaluating specific schools against published criteria. These criteria are necessarily imprecise, yet they do set certain baseline standards.

Is it appropriate for professional judgment to be used in determining the legal status of a degree supplier? How should that judgment be exercised, and by whom?

I'll be out July 7-9.

 

The Oregon legislature has already established its standard for degrees, namely recognized accreditation. Provision is made for positive exceptions, but that's the basic standard.

You seem to be arguing that they should replace the standard that they chose with a different one of your choosing: general recognition of state approvals, with provision for negative exceptions.

Does every state reliably enforce all their regulations as they are written on paper? I'm not convinced that one can always assume that.

It's the nature of laws that people are expected to obey them. If you think that this particular law is unjust, then make that argument. But the mere possibility that a law might be enforced isn't in and of itself unjust.

If somebody doesn't want to cooperate, they obviously have that choice. They can remain totally silent and if they are subsequently prosecuted, then they will have full opportunity to argue their case in court.

But if they would like to avoid that unpleasantness, they can either stop using the questioned degree or else ask Mr. Contreras' office to approve it. Seems reasonable to me.

I can't imagine how you get that impression.

I fail to see how anyone is being "tricked" or how anyone is being asked to "make statements against self-interest". But if anyone really fears that asking the ODA to approve their non-accredited degree is some strange kind of self-incrimination, they obviously have the option of saying, in effect, 'see ya in court'.

The state only has to demonstrate two things: A. The degree in question wasn't accredited, and B. The degree in question wasn't OR-approved. Whether or not it meets anyone else's preferred standard of what is or isn't bogus isn't really relevant.

The state is obligated to demonstrate that the degree isn't accredited and that it isn't approved for use in Oregon. I don't see what additional investigative burden they have. It's actually very simple.

That's why a policy of general approvals for entire states and then picking out the bad apples would create a new investigative burden where one doesn't currently exist. The state would be put in the position of having to prove "bad-appleness". That in turn is a strong argument for leaving things as they are now.

 

I think that I understand your main argument, DesElms. I've also enjoyed your presentation of your arguments. It seems to me though that different assumptions are being made that I don't think I can agree with.

I would instead like to propose that a degree is more like a license for an airplane. Let's say that the law states that the standard airplanes approved in the state must have had their manufacturer approve the design through the FAA. (I don't know if the FAA really does this, but it's just a hypothetical.) I'll refer to an airplane built by a major airplane manufacturer that's been approved by the FAA as an accredited plane. (just to try and make the analogy more obvious) The law allows for experimental airplanes that could use designs approved by the FAA or not that are not built by major manufacturers. I'll call these types of airplanes unaccredited airplanes.

What is unconstitutional about requiring someone that wants an unaccredited airplane to pay extra fees? (To address your earlier argument that the $250 appraisal fee by the ODA as being unconstitutional.) What is unconstitutional about saying that before this unaccredited airplane can be flown, the owner must contact the OAA (Office of Airplane Authorization) and the OAA will make sure that the airplane doesn't endanger the public safety. If the owner had thought ahead perhaps he could have asked the OAA to approve his design before he even built the airplane! (Someone asking if the degree is legal for use in Oregon would not be making themselves vulnerable to prosecution for having a bogus degree. Remember having a totally bogus degree in Oregon is NOT against the law, only using it.)

I consider the unaccredited airplane analogous to an unaccredited degree because it is well within the government's right to protect the public against substandard degrees. The Oregon law says the standard degree is the accredited degree. If the unaccredited degree is deemed equivalent by the ODA then it is legal to be used, otherwise it is not.

 

Know Your Rights
Written by Joe Strummer and Mick Jones

Know your rights, all 3 of 'em:

Number 1
You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a crime
Unless it was done by a policeman or an aristocrat.

Number 2
You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Humiliation, investigation
And if you cross your fingers rehabilitation

Young offenders, Know your rights.

Number 3
You have the right to free speech
As long as you're not dumb enough
To actually try it

....These are your rights, all 3 of 'em
It has been suggested in some quarters
That this is not enough. Well
Get off the streets, get off the streets. Run
Don't you have a home to go to. Smush

Finally then I will read you your rights
You have the right to remain silent
You are warned that anything you say
Can and will be taken down and
Used as evidence against you
Listen to this. Run

 

Some of the issues I have with this entire process are the burden that is now placed on the commercial entities and the crime aspects.

Working for the federal government one of the very bastions of our rules is to not burden any commercial enterprise unnecessarily. (ok I can deal with the laughter)

With the Oregon system, what effect or burden is now placed on the businesses in Oregon that employ folks with unaccredited degrees? For instance, I'm a Fortune whatever company and have multinational ties. An employee with a degree from another country or from a state approved school in California is needed to work in a capacity that the degree was instrumental or even required to obtain the position. This person comes to work, either temporarily, or permanently in Oregon. Oregon says the degree is illegal for use. Since the law establishes a crime for the use what burden does the company now bear? Essentially Oregon is now forcing commercial businesses to police their workforce. More importantly can the company be held liable for requiring a degree and then accepting a California state approved degree as meeting the requirement and then moving this person to Oregon?

Gregg, help me here. Does Oregon have a three strike law? If so, do we really want to put someone in jail (felony?)for the use of a non Oregon approved degree on a resume?

What about Internet or trade magazines that cross state boundaries? If I place place my resume with an unaccredited degree in it in one of these forums or magazines and it lands in Oregon am I guilty of a crime?

Lastly,

if there was any merit to a crime provision does anybody believe that the federal government would have missed this opportunity? Especially in light of recent events. The most stringent action currently is removal. And it has shown to be ineffective. (politics and power) I would also hate to be the first civil servant (including academics) in Oregon to have a non compliant degree listed in my personnel folder.

 

ODA web site design

"Fed" asks some questioons about what happens with people asigned to Oregon temporarily, or about resumes that are posted on a service outside of Oregon but find their way to Oregon.

I was curious about that, even though I don't have any unaccredited degrees myself, so I went to the ODA web site. I was suprised to see that there is no obvious place on that web site that specifies what a holder of an unacredited degree should avoid doing to stay in the good graces of Oregon. That strikes me as a serious design flaw in the web site.

I found the law at http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/348.html. It says, in part,

So it would seem there is no problem until on receives a warning. Also, it appears that a foreign degree that has the foreign equivalent of accreditation is on solid ground. Unfortunately there does not seem to be any reliable list of exactly which degrees those are, but the vast majority of people who hold reputable foreign degrees could just go ahead and use them in Oregon. If the ODA ever happened to notice these reputable degrees in use, presumably they would know better than to send a warning.

The issue of a person posting a degree claim outside of Oregon in a place Oregon residents and businesses could find it seems unclear.

 

It is a misdemeanor, not a felony, to use a bogus degree in Oregon. The law states that it's illegal for a person holding a bogus degree to use the degree in Oregon. The way I read the law, the person holding the degree would be breaking the law not the employer. The employer might be vulnerable to a civil suit though for not ensuring that their services meet a credential requirement or a credential advertised/promise. That would be anywhere though, not just in Oregon.