Oregon

QJackson: "Were I living in Oregon, and let's say someone addressed me as Dr. Jackson...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."

------------------------------------

Golly, Mr. Oregon State Trooper, sir, it is true I was going 96 miles an hour, but you see, I am from Germany, where 96 mph is a legal speed on the Autobahn. Here is my German driver's license. Do you mean that just because Oregon has put a silly "65" on its speed limit signs, I am going to have to obey that, rather than the sensible laws of the place where I live, who issued me this license to drive on its roads legally at 96?"

 

I believe that issues are being confused. Take a hypothetical con-artist that lies to get your money. The con-artist cannot claim that his fraud is protected by freedom of speech.

As I understand the ODA rules if the XYZ University Ph.D. was found to not be acceptable then it is not really considered a Ph.D. in Oregon and cannot be used as a Ph.D. in Oregon. Freedom of speech is not an issue. The issue is that someone is claiming a Ph.D. when in fact it is not a Ph.D. (at least not in Oregon and some other states as well probably)

 

I agree the First Amendment does not protect fraud. But fraud is not the standard applied by ODA. ODA does not claim, at least to my knowledge, that Cal Coast degrees are fraudulent degrees, only that they don't meet the vague standards developed by their bureaucrats.

According to an earlier posting, ODA objected to the admission standards of Cal Coast. I guarantee we could find RA programs with equal or lower standards.

 

Yes, indeed.

How about this, though, which is more in keeping with how the Oregon law is presented in conversation to non-Oregonians:

Officer Helmut Tschuess, pulls over driver on German Autobahn, and says: "Herr Schmidt, you were driving 96, which is perfectly fine on our Autobahn, as you know. But how does it make you feel to know that the speed you were driving is illegal in Oregon? Make sure you never drive that speed, should you ever go to Oregon, please, Herr Schmidt."

Schmidt: "But I'm not driving in Oregon, Officer Tschuess!"

Tschuess: "Ah, but how does it make you feel that it would be illegal there, Mein Herr? Havvaniceday."

 

Hmm, so Cal Coast files a 100+ page application with the California BPPVE and undergoes a site review to verify the accuracy of the application but Oregon doesn't bother to read it?

 

Actually, Officer Tschuess would be remiss if he didn’t inform you that the Yugo you were driving, (although legal) was never really designed to safely go 96 (in Oregon, Germany, or anywhere else).

 

But a CCU degree is different in that it WAS designed to safely go 96 in California. At least under certain conditions, like sitting for the state licensure exam for psychology and practicing as such in California.

So what the officer should have told Herr Schmidt was that the speed limit was acceptable in Germany, but in Oregon the roads are dangerously unsafe. Traveling at 96 mph in Oregon could cause a blowout at any time.

 

Good analogy.

Quite often degrees and qualifications from one jurisdiction are not accepted in another. What's the big issue with those who keep bringing up the Oregon list? If Oregon want to make certain degrees illegal, well let them, that's their prerogative, but don't hold that against the poor bugger with the degree who can quite legitimately use it in another part of the country/world.

Example. Not all degrees from the USA are considered, by the Australian Government, to be equivalent to Australian degrees. Now that is a fact, not my opinion. Yes there is a list (compiled, incidentally, in association with John Bear): these RA's are in; those RA's are out. Does that mean people with non-equivalent RA PhD's don't get called "doctor" in Australia? No. Do we demonise holders of such degrees? Not me. Will such a person, to paraphrase John Bear's analogy, say "Here is my RA doctorate. Do you mean that just because Australia has a silly list of equivalent degrees, I am going to have to obey that, rather than the sensible laws of the place where I live, who issued me this fine RA PhD?" Maybe, but they still get called "doctor".

I think Bear et. al. are on the wrong bike on this one. Give it a rest, guys.

The point is that there is no world standard and that some jurisdictions will have different rules, laws, lists, registration requirements, whatever, from others. Let's get over it and stop holding up one jurisdiction, like Oregon, and say "Jeez, your degree's on the list; must be bad."

Different strokes for different blokes. Non equivalent RA PhD's (amongst others) may not be able to USE their PhD for academic employment, etc. in Australia but they can call themselves "doctor" until the cows come home.

It won't worry me.

Kind regards

 

Being a city cop, I've only encountered this excuse a few times, and never at that speed (96mph).

I have faced the "Autobahn" excuse before, although only a few times. Here are my answers;

Yes (you have to obey our speed limits).

No (I have no sympathy for someone who blows past traffic at twice the speed of the other cars on the road).


Bruce

 

They are not accepted as degrees that can be used in Oregon. Therefore if one would use a degree in Oregon that was not allowed they would be breaking the law. It is not a freedom of speech issue.

From http://www.osac.state.or.us/oda/unaccredited.html

"The following are some of the institutions whose degrees cannot legally be used in Oregon because the institutions are not accredited by an accrediting agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education or approved by ODA. See ORS 348.609."

 

Not to belabor the issue, but if you can be charged with a crime for stating you have a degree that is not approved by Oregon, it is a freedom of speech issue. (The fact you state you hold the degree can be considered "use".) You are being punished for your speech.

 

Perhaps in a sense. The question is whether that's a constitutional violation.

Everywhere that I know of, it's illegal to tell people that you are a police officer if you are not. So if laws against impersonating a police officer are constitutional, why not laws against impersonating a college graduate?

I think that this is a technical question, and that it is going to depend on a whole lot of precedents in constitutional law.

 

I'm no Constitutional Scholar, by far, but I always saw the Oregon law as treading on Article IV, section 1 definitely, and section 2 possibly.

As I understand things, Oregon would, under section IV.2 have the right to demand that LA deliver unto them someone wanted in OR for some crime. In that sense, OR has an expectation that LA would put full faith and credit in OR's state laws.

Let's put it another way: If Joe Blow, Ph.D., were fined $100,000 in OR for using his LA sanctioned Ph.D., and if, after being fined, Dr. Blow fled across state lines, and took up residence in LA, LA would be obligated to send Blow back to OR to face the music, even though, in LA, Joe Blow's Ph.D. is legal and valid.

Why is what is good for Peter not good for Paul in this special case? I am sure I am an idiot on matters constitutional ... so would someone enlighten me?

 

There are some key problems with that comparison:

1. If state A says one is a "graduate" -- then one is not "impersonating" a graduate.

2. Police officers are not granted status for life, and they are granted specific duties, under specific terms, in a specific jurisdiction. When John Officer becomes an officer, he knows, at the moment these duties are granted, where the "line" is.

Ph.D., however, is granted for life. The "duties" of a Ph.D. are not defined, except by history and the international body of scholars -- an amorphous mass at best. There is no clear definition of jurisdiction at the time of conferral. Yes -- it is clear that the granting body has borders -- but the granting body does not define a "border" in terms of where one can call that person Dr. The appellation is a courtesy within the international body of scholars, it is not a legislated title or guarantee of title.

For instance, if the University of Teheran confers Hamid Surati a Ph.D. in Iranonology, and Hamid comes to Canada, he may or may not be able to transfer the utility of his degree for teaching purposes, but he is, for his entire life, "Hamid Surati, Ph.D." He cannot rid himself of the conferral. It is quite unlikely that he would ever be stripped of the title by the granting body. He may insist that others never call him that -- but he cannot undo it, even by burning all of his paperwork.

The police officer, can be stripped of his duties for any number of reasons. There is no real comparison.

In my opinion, refusing to allow someone from University X to use the title is the equivalent to Oregon stating, "Unless you are the leader of a country that has democratic process, on official visits to state, you may not use your political title in public. We don't believe in dictatorships, and so, President-for-Life you may be called anywhere, but here, you are simply Georges Untel. While in Oregon, you also have no diplomatic immunity, and must refrain from wearing the official garb of your homeland. You must ride the public transportation system."

Of course they wouldn't do that to President-for-Life Untel. They'd roll out the carpet, even if they did not like the way he got into power over in his homeland.

 

Something that probably would hold up to scrutiny, be fair, and achieve its intended purpose, would be a law stating that any degree holder with a degree from an unaccredited institution add (Non-Accred.) after the degree title. The abbreviation is clear, the "consumers" would be adequately advised, the state would not be reaching beyond its jurisdiction in requiring that, and it would still allow the title to fit on business cards.

It would also reduce the work of the Oregon ODA considerably, since they would no longer be in the business of assessing quality of out of state bodies -- they would simply be in the business of enforcing compliance to this regulation.

 

Alan L. Contreras is apparently an Oregon official and it surprises me to see him involved in a bulletin board discussion of this sort.

I follow a couple of bulletin boards on topics in which I am expert, but I do not get involved in the discussions since I realize that my opinions are proprietary. It would be unfair of me to express my opinions and possibly insert into the conversation ideas or statements that are not fair balanced. Mr. Contreras does just that when he writes, "...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". This is a purely subjective statement about his opinion on the state of affairs in another state. I doubt very much that he can support the statement.

Mr. Contreras states that "We have interpreted 'use' to mean a situation in which the degree enhances an individual's personal or professional standing for some reason. Thus merely owning the degree is legal, but putting it on your resume or your wall is not". The reader is surely left to wonder who "we" represents. One also wonders why Oregon chooses this language while other states tend to extend "use" to "use to deceive", which is usually illegal in all states. "Use to deceive" is perfectly clear, relatively easy to manage through licensing, and definitiely enforceable, whereas "use' alone subjects individuals to potential witch hunts. What if one is no longer a practicing and licensed psyhologist who wants a doctoral degree for personal satisfaction and no longer sees patients. He still has an office, still does strategy assessment for other clinicians, who have used him for years based on his licensure, and misinformed he puts his new diploma on the wall. Along comes an agent of the ODA. The man is not using the degree to deceive anyone, yet he would probably be subject to embarrassment and fine. It might just drive him to suicide. But thats O.K. since Oregon has that all figured out, too.

Being from the midwest, I have come to dismiss most of what happens in Oregon as aberrant. I think my opinion on this issue will be the same.

 

Jack Justice

You notice strange things in Oregon.

I live on the Canadian prairies and if something really screwball comes on the news, its from British Columbia. (sorry Quinn)

Might be the salt in the air along the coast. Maybe its fumes from British Columbia's biggest agriculural export. (you guessed it)

 

I am glad you added that last statement. Until then some of what you said ALMOST made sense. You are, of course, aware that Oregon is reponsible for many advances and new ideas in American society. A good example is the referendum/intiative process (otherwise known as the Oregon System). I believe the system the State of Oregon has set is helpful both toOregon and the U.S.

 

Re: Jack Justice

Hehe... yes, it's true. My parents, of course, are Saskatchewan born and raised, so I was conceived in BC, spent three months in utero in Oregon, then 6 more back here ... but have prarie blood. ;-)

 

re: Jack Justice

If you look around a bit you will also find the main lawyer from Hawaii posting fairly often as he goes after some "less than wonderful" schools.