The "Oregon List" Expands Again

Here's an interesting tidbit from the above-mentioned Web site:

(2) In order to be intrinsically valid in Oregon as a public credential usable for general academic or professional purposes, under ORS 348.609 a claimed degree must have been awarded by a school that:

...

(d) Has obtained from the Office of Degree Authorization a religious exemption for a degree with an approved title in theology or a religious occupation.

Now, referring back to a conversation in another thread regarding the Universal Life Church, and it being a legally recognized as being legit (for better or worse). ULC offers many different degrees for sale including Doctorates. Based on the Oregon laws and the legal status of the ULC, could not one buy a ULC degree in Theology, be ordained for free just be sending an email asking to be, and apply for the religious exemption in Oregon and thus legally be a degree-holding pastor (without a congregation)?

Also, if my theory is valid, could the pastor then use his "legal" degree to further himself professionally in non-religious areas, e.g., get a banking job and claiming to hold a "legit" theology degree?

Christian

 

Bill Dayson,
The point here is that Mr. Contreras by virtue of his position makes decisions that affects lives, Carriers, hope and aspirations. The info posted on his web site MUST be totally free of obscurity. His data must be at least 99.9% accurate. In the case of MIGS/CEU for example, Rich Douglas is right on the money. MIGS/CEU will tell you that it is legally authorized to award all degrees up to Doctoral level. (And this claim has been verified and deemed correct by some people) Yet Mr. Contreras is saying otherwise but will not reveal his source. Only to say Mexican authority. Well MIGS/is claiming validity via Mexican authority also.

Now we have a claim and a counter claim, and it is the norm for a counter claimant to proof the counter claim beyond reasonable doubts. When I pointed these conflicting issues to Mr. Contreras and demand to know his source i.e. “THE MEXICAN AUTHORITY”, He nicely told me to limit my concern to the info on his web site and mind my own business. So what’s up with that?

Timmy Ade who has nothing against Mr. Contreras as a person.

 

I had thought ULC just provided ordination to anyone who wanted it, but you're right; they do offer quite an array of "degrees" in exchange for donations or free-will offerings ranging from $30 to $105.

I doubt that an individual could get a religious exemption; from my reading, this applies to the school that awards the degree. Even if you could, I rather doubt that a ULC Doctor of Divinity or Doctor of Immortality would help you get a non-religious job -- or very many religious jobs, for that matter.

------------------
Kristin Evenson Hirst
DistanceLearn.About.com

 

Timmy, I don't see how you can claim that you can dictate what the ODA must and must not do.

I also don't believe that it's possible to make any web site totally free of potential obscurity or misunderstanding.

I apologize for this nit but you've done it a number of times. You keep using the word carriers when it would seem to make more sense to use the word careers. Which is that you really mean?

Regarding "lives, Carriers, hope and aspirations", I think it's safe to assume that Mr. Contreras is far more concerned about these issues than the frauds running any of the degree mills that he has listed.

 

Exactly! The utility of a ULC doctorate would probably be nilch, except for those desiring to impress their parents--parents who failed to graduate from grammar school.

"Hey, ma! Look at this here doctors degree I done an got."

Russell

 

"I apologize for this nit but you've done it a number of times. You keep using the word carriers when it would seem to make more sense to use the word careers. Which is that you really mean?"

Bill Huffman,
You 're right about my miss-use of words as pointed out above. (Carriers as opposed to careers.)
You don't have to appologize. But again you saying, “Which is that you really mean?" above should have read WHICH IS WHAT YOU REALLY MEAN? You see "What" as opposed to "That" sounds better in this case.

Grammatically Yours,

Timmy.

 

Really? I would be very surprised if they did. Note how few other states even have this office. Are there any others besides Oregon?

State government funding being what it is, I'm surprised that Oregon has what it has.


Tom Nixon

Tom Nixon

 

My statement that Tom refers to is informed by two things:
(1) My research into the Columbia Pacific saga (almost 6 years). The evidence indicates a CPPVE "site visit" and an interactive 3-4 year history based mostly on bias, and driven by a few individuals or less. I would surmise also that CPPVE (now BPPVE) would have a research department, but as you (Tom) imply by your reference to state funding, probably not. But it did have some people with power to abuse and a possible agenda to catty out.
(2) As with the CPPVE fiasco (the CPPVE was closed down by the Governor in 1996 for nasty KGB-like activities - mostly abuses of power), my hunch (note "hunch") is that the ODA is driven by the narrow-mindedness and premature ejaculatory cognitions of one man, albeit with good intentions peppered with a Don Quixotic penchant for chasing windmills without having any real indepth knowledge of what a windmill looks like. That, as I mention, is just a hunch.

In any event I believe that the ODA, like the now executed California CPPVE (reincarnated as BPPVE)has no real credibility. But the ODA does possess legitimate power bestowed on it by a government most likely made up of amateurs (as most governments are constructed), and based on that power has the ability to influence the naive. I believe, in short, we have with the ODA a one man campaign....that is starting to appear as a vendetta. But I am sure his intentions are good intentions.... like that of The Inquisition?

Earon http://www.altcpualumni.org

 

Earon! Take a deep breath. Calm down.

Now tell us EXACTLY what the ODA is doing that is "narrow minded", "Don Quixotic", "has no real credibility", is "amateurish", is a "one man campaign", a "vendetta" and an "inquisition". Why is it "naive" to take the ODA seriously?

Oregon state law makes it illegal to use degrees in Oregon that are not either accredited by a DoE recognized accreditor, have the foreign equivalent of that accreditation, are OR-approved, or have a religious exemption. As David Yamada astutely points out, that law is definitely open to legal challenge.

But as long as it is on the books, and as long as Alan Contreras and his colleagues have been assigned to implement it, I can't see that he should be personally attacked for doing so.

"Prematurely ejaculatory cognitions of one man" is just slightly strong. What justifies your saying that? Has he failed to correctly perform the duties that Oregon state law assigned him?

Is there even one school on his list that shouldn't be? If so, why?

 

Since people are talking about ULC a bit in this thread, I think it might be worth mentioning that, at least as far as their divinity degrees go, a lot of people purchasing paper from ULC do so because it's "humorous." I believe my father considered purchasing a divinity degree from them 25 years ago for $10.00 or whatever. I think he decided against it, but the idea was that it would be "cute" and "funny." The problem, I think, is that when 1000s of people decide that that is "cute" and "funny," they (besides wasting their money) help to bring profit to a gaseous quack company that is probably more interested in a quick buck than in the spreading of cuteness and funniness. The clients, misguided and ignorant of the larger problem of degree mills, help to prop up fake credentials that others, more cynically, use to commit fraud when they pose as ordained ministers and sell their services as "seers," "animal communicators," etc.

 

California Coast University

MIGS (Not yet. ODA has seen clear to explain some, but not all, of their process in dealing with MIGS. But the CEU shouldn't have anything to do with the list; it is properly recognized, and no other legitimate Mexican university appears there. Plus, they took the step to list MIGS before they had their facts--something they've admitted on the website. It is that reason they should be forthcoming on the MIGS situation. If it is true that the CEU has no authority to award doctorates, that would be very big news. So share it!)

Frederick Taylor University (As with CCU, where are of the other thousands of unaccredited California schools?)

University of Santa Barbara

University of Santa Monica

Washington School of Law

Just because the state has decided to "outlaw" degrees from unaccredited out-of-state schools they don't directly approve doesn't make it right. And it is inconsistent. They list some schools, but not anywhere near all, that fall into a variety of cateogories. Some from states with little or no regulatory activities, some from foreign jurisdictions, some from California. It is a hit-and-miss operation, at best. The list is comparable to selective prosecution. Either publish a complete list (as complete as such a list can be) or don't do it at all.

Interestingly, "they" now approve of Bob Jones University and the University for Humanistic Studies. Did those schools actually go through an approval process conducted by ODA? I would be surprised to find that Bob Jones U. bowed to a state government, and the UHS appears dormant. So what gives? This guy raises far more questions than he answers.

Rich Douglas

 

I have no issue with the above statement and the law. My issue is with how the law is carried out. All of the information on that site is not accurate. The state has merely to state specifically (I assume you are a fan of specificity by your response to me, Dan) what the criteria are for degrees in Oregon.

The criteria for Oregon are that all degrees used in Oregon must be RA, or equivalent (with specific examples given). Exceptions are made in some cases where Oregon approval is granted. That's all great - not an issue for me. Instead, the focus of the site rapidly shifts to an attempt at flushing out degree mills (OK in my book as long as its done with accuracy - evidence provided if it is a government site that's making such an attempt). I think the site is being misused.

The site then
places unaccredited schools and diploma mills in the same cluster and fails to specify what is a mill and what is unaccredited but not a mill. In one example the site stated that Columbia Pacific was operating out of Hawaii, which is incorrect. An associate corrected the site owner on this 2+ times and the allegation was finally removed. That an unfounded and poorly sourced allegation exists on a government site is not acceptable. Where is the owner's infor mation coming from? What "expert" will come forward and state that he/she has done the research and handed same over to the ODA site? And what specific research, other than hunches, informs the information on the site? And in what manner was it carried out? There are other allegations which are factually incorrect but I won't go into those at the moment (I am saving those for later).

What I am stating in summary is simply that the site seems to be the work of one person and that person's research is not credible (I don't think any research has been done). And not unlike the ODA person I am taking a certain writer's liberty and playing with rhetoric, itself no less credible than what is too be found on the ODA site, albeit with a little more flare. And it makes no claim to be other than what it is.
Earon

 

Why shouldn't these schools be on the list? They lack any US DoE recognized accreditation.

Ah yes, MIGS. It always seems to come back to that, doesn't it?

The Oregon Administrative Rule specifies that a foreign approval must apply academic standards equivalent to those applied by American accreditors. Has that requirement been met? Once again: who has oversight over MIGS and how has that responsibility been exercised?

I'm not familiar with this school.

I share some of your disquiet. But that's no reason to personally trash Contreras and the ODA as has been happening in this thread. Perhaps somebody should follow up on David Yamada's remarks and discuss the underlying law.

All the schools on the list share one characteristic in common: They fail to pass the criteria set forth in Division 50 of the Oregon Administrative Rules.

What's wrong with:

A. Listing the criteria.

B. Listing the programs that have already been found to fail the criteria, so that students and employers will be aware of them and repeated inquiries avoided?

That's what the ODA is doing now, and it seems like a sound procedure to me.

Presumably they cooperated with the state of South Carolina, assuming that BJU is operating legally there.

I assume that somebody with a UHS degree approached the ODA and sought to have its status legalized as provided for in the rules. I don't know how that was done, but it might not be all that difficult and schools like CCU, FTU (and conceivably even MIGS) could pass if the attempt was made.

So does life itself.

 

Like the ODA, Bill picks and chooses what he wants to address. The fact remains, the ODA does a spotty, inconsistent job of listing schools. It lumps legitimate, unaccredited schools in with degree mills and it misses other schools entirely. This is "line-of-sight" enforcement. ODA shoots only at what it wants to.

Why doesn't it list all the schools in all the countries that it doesn't approve of? Where are all the other Mexican universities, for example? Where are all the other California-approved schools? What about schools in Alabama (like Chadwick)? why wasn't Northcentral on the list prior to its candidacy? SCUPS? It is all very half-assed.

The last we heard, ODA had not heard anything from the Nuevo Leon government about the status of MIGS vis a vis the CEU. That does not seem to have changed, yet ODA concludes that the CEU does not have the right to award doctoral degrees. Where did this come from? Sorry, but there is ample evidence to support the notion that they do have that right. I'd love to hear verifiable information to the contrary, but a vague blurb from an incompetent bureaucrat doesn't quite cut it.

Can you imagine the scenario if every state took the stance of the ODA? Every unaccredited school would have to go to all 50 state governments to receive approval to operate and award degrees. Fifty different processes and sets of standards (not to mention the costs). It would be chaos. It would be as if Oregon decided it wasn't going to recognize other states' drivers licenses or marriage licenses or contracts.

I've often stated that in the U.S. it is RA that determines whether or not a school should be considered part of the higher educational system. If Oregon wants to do that, fine. Unconstitutional probably, but fine. But this shabby, incomplete, and inconsistent publication of school names should stop. But, of course, this isn't about enforcement, it is about appearances. Put a crappy list together and put it up on a website so you look like your doing something about a problem that likely doesn't even exist in Oregon. Big deal.

Rich Douglas

 

Aren't you asking for the impossible? Degree mills pop up and close down so fast that an army of full time experts couldn't list them all.

The problem as I see it is that no legislature has yet figured out how to cover all these bases with legislation. Even if such a law could ever be passed, some enterprising and creative fraud would likely figure out a way around it. Oregon seems to have accepted that and came up with a creative alternative. They have an expert in place that can make the evaluations when needed.

It is NOT the reponsibility of Oregon to answer all these questions and make all these decisions that you seem to be demanding of them. The ODA is really primarily there to help residents of Oregon. The ODA is not going to provide everthing that people seem to be demanding of them and the ODA doesn't have to, especially when they're not even residents of Oregon. In my opinion this is reasonable and even acceptable.

 

Totally agreed. It mixes legitimate CA approved schools with the fraudulent phonies. Notwithstanding the accreditation issues, my 2-cents tells me that a California Coast Ph.D is very different than one from University of San Moritz; one gives an individual to become a registered psychologist in CA, and the later gives one a time bomb to carry around with.

I'd think that if ODA is trying to make a statement, they might as well make a clear statement. Well intentioned?? I think so. Credibility? Not much, since it's truly a half-ass job. If the ODA did some real research, they'd know that Columbia Commonwealth is not or never was from Hawaii, and probably not a diploma mill either (I believe Earon on that one 4 sure). Plus, schools like Century, Chadwick, Adam Smith, American Global,and the rest of the bullshits should have made the list long ago. No authorities can track down new phonies every minute of the hour of course, but if ODA's research team is a bit more competent than they are right now, then SCUPS should be right up there on the list if Calcoast makes it.

And if Alan (or whatever his name is)can't provide evidence to his claims, then it's pure bullshit. Like Mr. Douglas says, "[it] shoots only at what it wants to." Moreover, it's extremely unprofessional and unacceptable to the general public if the attitude of the ODA is "if you don't believe us, we don't need to explain to you."

Regards,

Byran

Regards,

Byran

 

"Yes, the Oregon regulation is very possibly a constitutional
infringement on free speech and association." (David Yamada)

Okay. I thought about this for several days before deciding that I just don't understand. I agree that the Oregon law appears to be overbroad. I can see from an administrative law standpoint that it could result in the "arbitrary and capricious" exercise of state power.
I can also see that it infringes on freedom of speech but there I imagine that the speech (using degree titles) would receive the limited protection afforded commercial speech as opposed to political speech. Fraud is yet fraud, and I don't see where one would publicly use a mill diploma except to make a false representation as to one's professional qualifications for gain.
I confess, though, that I don't see how "freedom of association" is implicated. Could someone explain it to me? (I am NOT repeat NOT a first amendment scholar!)
Nosborne