Oregon

Re: Re: Irony

I agree and I disagree.

I agree in that Alan Contreras and his office are a part of some Oregon student assistance department or something. They are not a law enforcement agency. So while they can issue warnings, if those warnings are ignored any further action would be the responsibility of the state's prosecutors. Unfortunately, violation of this law is merely a misdemeanor, and bringing a court case against these knd of defendants would probably mean extended and costly litigation.

Prosecutors are always overloaded with cases, and most work on kind of a triage system. They don't pursue cases with high costs and low rewards.

Where I disagree with Rich is in the assertion that the law is toothless. It really isn't. I think that its value is in defining what a substandard university is under Oregon law. This way, if an employer ever wants to use possession of a non-accredited degree as grounds for termination or something, all he or she has to do is point at the Oregon statutes. The degree is illegal. There would be no need to argue at length in court about what a "degree mill" is, or to fly in John Bear as an expert witness.

So even if the state prosecutors decline to prosecute violators of this rather innocuous misdemeanor, the fact remains that use of the degrees is illegal in state law, and that fact can be used in other kinds of legal cases.

 

DegreeInfo Posse Comitatus

The page one story in today's San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com) is about a local businessman victimized by identify theft, and even though he had located the culprit, told by the police that they just didn't have time for victimless crimes -- so the guy bought a stun gun and a net, and captured the criminal himself.

If this kind of thing catches on, that might be the way to deal with fake and bad schools that government agencies identify as such, but don't have the personnel (or the will) to enforce the laws.

DIPC. DegreeInfo Posse Comitatus. Hand me the Anarchist's Cookbook, ma, I gotta make me a Molotov cocktail.

John Bear, only arrested once so far, and that was for
selling copies of the Bill of Rights (for a nickel) on the
sidewalks of Mendocino, to protest a new no-street-vendors
law.

 

Re: Re: Re: Irony

Actually, Bill, we agree. My meaning of "toothless" was that there wouldn't be anyone prosecuted for violating this law. I agree that its strength is in public information and awareness, and the potential sway it has over opinion regarding the "less-than-wonderfuls" and degree mills.

In fact, I've criticized Contreras' list for being incomplete and haphazardly constructed. Also, I don't like the fact that an unaccredited school is bad unless it is specifically approved by ODA. I cannot imagine many out-of-state schools bothering to--or risking--going through this process. As a result, there are few "ODA-approved" schools on the list.

Rather than a list, I feel a more even-handed approach would be to set criteria for unaccredited schools to be listed, then stick to those. Or ban 'em. Whatever. But this hit-and-miss approach is weak.

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony

Then we would be right back at that hard nut that seems impossible to crack. How can a substandard school actually be defined! Those academic frauds are mighty creative and tricky!

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: Irony

Yeah, I read your "toothless" to mean "useless", and was probably arguing more with the voices in my head than with you.

I think the way they put it is "illegal for use in Oregon", rather than "bad".

Perhaps an analogy is some medication that's sold over the counter in Mexico, but isn't approved for human use by the US FDA. It isn't necessarily bad, in fact it might be great. But it isn't US-approved for use here.

 

"Bad" was a linguistic shortcut on my part, and not a very accurate one.

When I talked about criteria, what I meant was that I feel Oregon should decide categorically what it will and will not recognize as legal for use in the state. For example, it should decide whether or not to accept California BPPVE Approval, rather than go school-by-school. (Worse even, since it condemns some of them specifically, many of them categorically, and cites one exception.) ODA could list the state agencies whose approval it accepts, along with the accrediting agencies it deems acceptable.

Bill Huffman: Then we would be right back at that hard nut that seems impossible to crack. How can a substandard school actually be defined! Those academic frauds are mighty creative and tricky!

But Oregon already tries to do this, but in the opposite. It considers degrees from unaccredited schools illegal for use in the state unless the state specifically approves the schools. By what criteria? It is a hard nut either way, deciding what to approve or what not to approve. That's why I suggest an institutional (agency) based approach. Decide which states' approval to recognize, then get on with it. Reciprocity, in a one-way sense.

 

I'm not arguing that Oregan's laws can't be improved. From my perspective it appears that Oregan's "anti-degree-mill" law seems to be working better than most states. It would be great from my point of view if Wyoming and Montana passed similar laws. I'm also disappointed that Florida hasn't ever rewritten their academic fraud law. I think more states should pass laws against use of bogus degrees.

 

And I think we need the equivalent of a ministry of education, and take this haphazard, degree mill-permitting crud away from the states. The USDoE has made overtures like that before--as when it required states to designate an office in each that would be a focal point for approving which schools could get financial aid for their students, but they've always backed off. I suspect it is both a Constitutional issue and one of disinterest. The present system of licensing and accreditation works very well, as long as you can turn away from the millions of dollars being spent each year on fake degrees--and the harm a million or so people are causing with their fake degree claims. But we're not going to get our wishes, are we?

Oregon's ODA might have its heart in the right place. And it's PR campaign might even do some good. But it will stop exactly no one from using a degree from a school on the ODA's list. The one example cited here resulted in what? No action. ODA complained, the guy's employer backed him up, he and they continue to list the degree. That weakens, not strengthens, the ODA's position.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

I agree that this would be the best solution. However, I think the chance of it ever happening is miniscule. There's probably a better chance that all the states pass a law saying that the ability to grant degrees may only be bestowed by the legislature or the state department/ministry of education.

 

Nothing to do with distance ed.

I have a couple clients who truck between Canada and the US.

One trucker's broker had informed their drivers by letter do not drive through Oregon. Drive around it.

Dost we suspect that Oregon authorities, in all their stripes, might may be somewhat retentive anally. Perhaps a Levicoff question?

 

If a trucker who holds a non-RA degree drives through Oregon and is stopped by law enforcement, s/he could immediately be incarcerated. Cal Coast has also warned their truck drivers to avoid Oregon.

 

I don't think posession of the degree is sufficient. One must be found "under the influence" through its use....

 

LOL
IOUIDMD, In Oregon Under the Influence of a Degree Mill Degree

 

============================================

first my alma mater is attacked now my state is barraged is nothing sacred?

 

A severe offense indeed! Much akin to terrorism or treason.

 

If Oregon in fleshly form may be allowed to enter this thread, I will offer a few thoughts. First, Oregon is not the only state in which using an unaccredited degree as a credential is illegal - the same is true in New Jersey and, if I recall correctly, Indiana (doctorates only).

I agree that ODA's efforts in recent years have been most effective in their p.r. value, but that p.r. has resulted in many people, including two college presidents, several faculty members, one senior police official and one finalist for head of a state agency agreeing to cease using diploma mill degrees. And that's just the flashy ones.

The main problem with approving unaccredited colleges in clusters based on approval by another state is that laws in the other state can change at any time - I will only mention California- and thus standards that are fine in June may be atrocious or gone in July. We'd have to stay on top of 49 state laws every year.

The legislature recently granted our commission fining authority. We will begin using it this fall to deal with some cases.

The commonest constitutional issue that we hear is that there is a First Amendment right to use a degree. Wrong. A degree is a credential, not speech. We also hear the interstate commerce issue. Since we apply the same standards to Oregon startups as to schools based elsewhere, this argument has no life.

 

hip-hip hoorah for Oregon, New Jersey and Indiana, the use of phoney degrees is an insidious and dangerous practise that undermines education in general and distance learning in particular.

I would also like to thank you for the most wonderful ODA website which provides a public service that far exceeds the borders of the great state of Oregon.

 

And what exactly is "use"?

Were I living in Oregon, and let's say someone addressed me as Dr. Jackson -- on TV or a radio program, for instance, or in a public message on a bulletin board such as this....

Would I have to correct them and say:

"I'm sorry, sir, but although the LA Board of Regents has said my degree is legal, and although academics have accepted it at par and call me Dr. Jackson, since I am in Oregon, you will have to call me Mr., or I risk being fined. I'll be in California in a week -- you can call me up and call me Dr. Jackson then."

 

Is this also true for religious degrees? If a pastor uses an unaccredited doctorate professionally, i.e., on his church sign, in advertisements and business cards, etc., is this also considered illegal?

Trinity (Newburgh, Indiana) awards the non-RA doctorate, so is it considered illegal to use that same legally awarded degree in a professional manner in the very state which awarded it?