Talk:Columbia Pacific University/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Copyright violation 2 Graduate defends school April 25, 2006 3 Graduate defends school May 3, 2006 4 Documents 5 Columbia Pacific University (CPU): A Victim of Miscarriage of Justice and Sensationalist Media 6 Edits on May 9, 2006 7 Steven A. Brody 8 Dr. Brody and CPU 9 New comment 10 The Libellous Claims of "Legitimate Learning" 11 Serious POV Problems 12 The Pioneering Vision of CPU: A Response to Critics 13 Some things that need doing 14 Unexplained Deletions 15 CAE Critique of the 1995 Report of the Visiting Committee 16 December 1998 17 The Tragicomedy of the CPU Witch-hunt: Blaming the Learner for Learning 18 Evidence of Media Misinformation on CPU: The Case of FBI Expert John Bear 19 Why was CPU closed 20 Many schools have the same problem as CPU

[edit] Copyright violation

Much of the material in this articles seems to have been lifted verbatim from http://www.altcpualumni.org/chronicles/dex5cpuchronicles.html, which is an extremely partisan source. If anyone has time it would be helpful to remove verbatim copying and to check the POV. -Willmcw 22:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Can we discuss major changes to the article here, please? Thanks, -Willmcw 21:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Graduate defends school April 25, 2006

As a 1989 graduate, of Columbia Pacific University, I can only say, my studies were real and my work, of 3+ years, was the reason for the granting of my degree. CPU Graduates were NOT given anything, we worked for our degrees.

The school, was most likely attacked for political reasons; which was very unfortunate. I would encourage other CPU graduates to make there comments here.

Mark A. Gardner - ATP-CE500,CE560XL, B.S.,CFII,MEI. (Professional Pilot)

I enjoy reading spelling mistakes made by people defending their (there?) university as legitimate and genuine.

Angelina Dawes -B.A, M.L.I.S.

I'm sure people who graduate from what is now known as regionally accredited institutions never make mistakes, particularly with the use of English grammar. Yet I do believe in capitalization of "University", if not for the sake of the rules of the English language, just to emphasize the actual point of this discussion.

I am also a graduate of Columbia Pacific University (1984), when the prestige of a legal degree granting institution approved by the State of California was equal to, if not exceeding that of any accrediting bodies that existed at that time. In my case I had nearly completed my degree elsewhere, but spent nearly another 3 years working hard to complete my degree and other requirements. My thesis was approved by my mentor/advisor William A. Coonfield who was also a Professor at UC Northridge, and a Naval Officer. My degree has been recognized by top fortune 100 companies, including; IBM, AT&T, American Financial Group, Cap Gemini Ernst & Young, Duke Energy, and several others.

Curt Hawley B.A. Future Studies(Futuristics) curthawley@curthawley.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.138.83.249 (talk) 03:38, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Graduate defends school May 3, 2006

Over 1.5 years I researched and collected government documents to develop the above website. Those documents were scanned and linked in that website, so that anyone can take the time to view them. I am the originator of that website (http://www.altcpualumni.org/chronicles/dex5cpuchronicles.html). I am also the originator of the the original Wiki article. If it would be of help I can upload scanned government documents to support everything I have written.

Earon Kavanagh, BS (CPU 1995); PhD Candidate, Tilburg University (Netherlands, gov't funded provincial university) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earon (talk • contribs)

The new entry at the beginning of the Wiki article claims that CPU was a "notorious diploma mill". This statement is both misleading, nonsense, lacking analysis, and libelous. Court rulings on the CPU matter (both administrative and State appeals) did not make such statements. If it would help I can upload a pdf of the 1991 State review of CPU and the State document of approval which asserts that CPU was equivalent in quality to regionally accredited institutions. I can also upload court documents and rulings. The press selected negative rhetoric from the local State attorney. I can also upload eyewitness statement from John Bear PhD, who witnessed Judge Jean Druyee berate that State attorney for his lack of preparedness and his obnoxious behavior in the courtroom. Most negative publicity on the internet related to CPU is simply persons copying and repeating negative press in their own websites, without doing any actual evident analysis of the situation.

Incidently, CPU was awarded IRS nonprofit status in February, 2006. CPU Press also published its first book in over a decade.

Earon Kavanagh, BS (CPU 1995); PhD Candidate, Tilburg University (Netherlands, gov't funded provincial university) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earon (talk • contribs)

The article is very inaccurate. Below are a few reasons why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.164.181 (talk • contribs) . (text omitted - see link at http://www.rae.org/racistresponse.html)

Thanks for your input. I deleted the text you copied and pasted from your website, and replaced it with a link. -Will Beback 20:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Documents

Will: Thanks, I will rewrite the article providing I can upload the original government documents to Wikipedia as the primary source files. That way, the "red flag" of citing one source will not be occurring. The website was started in 2001 as a way to hold and display these documents. EaronEaron 03:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the phrase "as the school had very low academic standards" from the second paragraph on CPU. This phrase is unnecessary, unscholarly and misleading. The fact that the school failed to meet the 1995 reapproval vist under the new regulations of 1989 implies clearly that the school's academic and other administration standards did not meet the new regulations. The school could have re-applied and received approval at a later date if it so chose as did Pacific Western University for its business program. Failing a reapproval test, or a re-accreditation visit, does not discredit the school's performance for its entire life. It simply means that the school is not meeting current standards and must clean up its act to continue. EaronEaron 15:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I read on the BPPVE site and in the Point Reyes Light, the point of view that you are describing appears to be an unusal one. While we need to include all points of view, we should not give too much weight to minority views. -Will Beback 19:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point, Will. I will make sure that all points and views are given equal value. It will take a bit of time. However those points should reflect sound research and analysis. Simply regurgitating what is found on negative websites that also regurgitate is misleading. I have no qualms with the BPPVE website as it is source material. The fact is that CPU failed its 1995 reapproval visit, and then chose to stay open AFTER being told to close in 1997. However, court testimony from Dr. Betty Dowd, a whistleblower, also impicate higher ups at the CPPVE, BPPVE's predeccor. This will also be placed on the Wiki site. That is where CPU got into trouble. We need to keep to the facts, and give opinions a lesser weight. P.S. Thanks for the welcome. I do have some non-CPU material to add to Wiki. Cheers, EaronEaron 04:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Earon, you might want to look at Wikipedia:reliable sources. Basically, we don't allow forums, blogs, and self-published material as sources. -Will Beback 06:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Columbia Pacific University (CPU): A Victim of Miscarriage of Justice and Sensationalist Media

Dirty Politics and Libellous Announcements

Irresponsible and libellous media announcements have defamed Columbia Pacific University (CPU) as a diploma mill. In reality CPU was supervised and approved by the California State Department of Education. Effective 1986-1989, California documents confirm that CPU's full institutional approval was the equivalent of regional accreditation.

CPU was a California State Accredited University. CPU degrees are legal and valid! California newspapers, such as the Point Reyes Light and the Union Tribune in San Diego published misinforming articles about CPU but failed to set the record straight when I submitted to the editors letters requesting appropriate corrections.

The closing of CPU resulted not from valid educational considerations but from the dirty politics of higher education in California. Mind you, the judicial system is often not about truth and justice but about power and money. Miscarriage of justice is a common phenomenon. CPU was closed on the basis of a fabricated report full of factual errors and insubstantial allegations. For example, it absurdly claimed that Harvard-trained psychiatrist Dr. Richard Crews was unfit to serve as the President of CPU because he was an MD and not a PhD. Another preposterous and prejudiced assertion was directed against the black deans of CPU holding PhDs from well-known European universities. The report falsely alleged that these European universities are unaccredited. There were over 80 errors of fact in the report rendering it completely worthless.

Error of Fact Number 28: The Spanish Dissertation

Error of Fact Number 28, for example, has become quite famous and mentioned in a variety of media articles. It concerns a Spanish dissertation that allegedly was approved by faculty who did not speak Spanish. In reality, the CPU faculty mentor who supervised the dissertation worked with the student in Spanish and the doctoral thesis provided Table of Contents, Summary and additional information in English. Moreover, CPU policy changed in early 1995, so that dissertations could be submitted only in English.

Documented refutation of all the false claims against CPU has been published on line in "The Chronicles of Columbia Pacific University", www.altcpualumni.org. Please, note that CPU graduates earned their degrees through competency and hard work. Thousands of them teach at accredited schools or work in research, civil service, business and industry. The defamation of the good name of CPU as a pioneer of distance education is unfair and unacceptable. Today CPU is a federally recognized non-profit educational institution, www.cpuniv.us .

Pluralistic Education is a Necessity''

I believe that Pluralistic Education advances the Public Good and therefore it is not only a Democratic Right but also a Necessity. We live in the electronic age that can provide the technology for the development of an information society in which education becomes accessible to broad segments of humankind. The rise of cybernetic culture in the global village can bring distance learning even to the most remote areas of the world. It helps education to be more democratic. Knowledge is power. Education empowers people to become an integral part of a well-informed citizenry, enabling them to create a constructive culture of social and political democracy.

Today virtual schools allow the realization of the once-utopic vision of education for all. Unfortunately, the development of virtual schools is also accompanied by the proliferation of Diploma Mills, bogus universities that are in the business of selling fake academic degrees. The infestation of the academic world with diploma mills is accompanied by the problem of how to separate the wheat from the chaff, the wide-spread inability of the public to differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate educational institutions.

Authoritarian Measures Suffocate Creativity

It was Albert Einstein who stressed that imagination is more important than knowledge and that the outstanding accomplishments of the intellect are based on the freedom of thought. In Ideas and Opinions (1954) he points out that the development of science and of the creative activities of the spirit require inner freedom, "the independence of thought from the restrictions of authoritarian and social prejudices as well as from unphilosophical routinizing and habit in general" (p. 42). And he adds: Schools might play constructive or destructive roles. They may favour inward freedom and encourage independent thought but they may also interfere and repress them through authoritarian measures.

Another leading thinker, Nicholas Negroponte, Professor of Media Technology at MIT, maintains that bureaucratic organizations are the enemies of creative environments. In "Where Do New Ideas Come From?" (Wire, 4.01), he observes that governments and corporations are sterile leagues that stifle imagination and creativity. This is a pity, he says, because we need innovative schools to develop, foster and nurture new ideas for human progress. Prof. Negroponte views the university as an unsettled habitat with undefined edges accommodating academics as well as people "who don't fit traditional scholarship" because new ideas come from a muddled creative environment.

A CPU Connection

Allow me please to add a note about my affiliation with CPU. After graduating from high school in Hungary, I attended for two years the University of Szeged. I hold a BA and a Teacher's Certificate from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and a Master's (History and Art History) from Concordia University in Montreal ( Canada), [1], [2] . I wrote my thesis on Georg Lukacs: Aesthetics and History, [3]. I completed all my doctoral course requirements at Concordia, did additional work at Columbia Pacific University and wrote my dissertation on The Interface Dynamics of Art and Science (1986). In the process of researching my doctoral thesis I collaborated with a group of renowned scientists and scholars, including P.R. Halmos (Editor of the American Mathematical Monthly), Sir Nevill Mott (Nobel Laureate in Physics) and John Kemeny ( Dartmouth College President). Under the title, The Brush and the Compass, the dissertation was published in 1988 by University Press of America, [4], an umbrella academic clearing house of Harvard, Columbia, Stanford and others. The book has been internationally acclaimed and also taught in anthropology, art and science and other interdisciplinary courses, [5], [6], [7], [8]. I am also the author of A History of Architecture (Jerusalem: R. Mass, 1972), [9], as well as of other critically acclaimed books, [10], and have published numerous scholarly papers in such peer-reviewed journals as Leonardo, [11], [12], Orbiter, Ylem,Pulsar,Contemporary Philosophy, [13], Q.A.M.T. and Lo Straniero.

Paul Hartal 17:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits on May 9, 2006

To the Editors of Wikipedia:

Thank you for deleting the highly misleading, offensive wording “notorious diploma mill” from Wikipedia’s entry on Columbia Pacific University! Eliminating such contradictory “add-ons” is important for Wikipedia to avoid the appearance of being a “scissor-and-paste” reference source.

In taking a stand for the truth and consistency, more still needs to be done in order to remove the dark cloud of injustice that has been brought to hang over the thousands who earned their legitimate CPU degrees. For example, the Associated Press quote that CPU “had virtually no academic standards” belies that fact that the majority of CPU’s faculty were professors of regionally accredited institutions and held to the same standard of excellence required by their “home” institutions. And those who sat for their California State psychologist license with their CPU degrees had to put in the same thousands of hours of State-approved supervised internship just like those who graduated from traditional accredited institutions.

In earning my Ph.D., I had real “in-person” qualified professors, readers, and advisors who helped guided my on-site research (not a “paper” research).

The late Dr. H. Douglas Dean, Professor of Biology at Pepperdine University, met with me once or twice per month at the university for 2-6 hours each time for 24 months (his wife Dr. Lucia Dean, M.D., can verify this). Prior to that, I spent several months of preparatory research taking the course “Observing Animal Behaviors in Zoos” at UCLA.

In developing my dissertation, I had numerous meetings with David Morehead (California Licensed Psychologist), Linda Cron (Assistant Prof. of English, California State University at Fullerton), Carroll Pitts, Jr. (late Prof. of Ministry, Pepperdine; his wife Berniece can verify my meetings), and Michio Nagai (Prof. of Old Testament Studies, Pepperdine University, now retired).

The librarians of the Los Angeles Zoo Library, Charles E.Young Research Library (UCLA), Kennedy Library (Calif. State Univ. at L.A.), and Payson Library (Pepperdine) had to complete a form to be approved that it can support my doctoral research:

Finally, hundreds of hours of on-site research were done at the Los Angeles & San Diego Zoos.

Recognition of my CPU doctorate can be seen in that agreeing to participate in the conferring of my Ph.D., held at Pepperdine’s Stauffer Chapel, was Dr. Carl Mitchell, Religion Dept. Chairperson and Professor of Psychology and William Green Scholar (he is now at Harding University, AR).

Does this sound like a “diploma mill” with “virtually no academic standards”? As you can see, CPU definitely DID have academic standards and they were adhered to by the professors from the very traditional Pepperdine University! Thank you for your responsible editorship, sense of “fair play” and not allowing Wikipedia to be abused by those who are bent on maligning CPU!!!

Sincerely,

Dr. Allen Wai Jang 1993 “National Honor Roll Science Teacher” (nominated by UC Berkeley's Lawrence Hall of Science, selected by the Association of Science & Technology Centers) 2004 Teen Ink magazine “Educator of the Year” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.7.149.45 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Steven A. Brody

Someone added several entries to the list of notable alumni. I spot checked a couple and found this odd one. Dr. Brody says on his CV (here) that he received a PhD. from CPU in Novato in 2001. But our article says they had been closed long before that. Any ideas? -Will Beback 20:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No source was given for the additions and many supposed alumni do not appear to be notable, so I've removed the new entries. Let's find a verifiable source before adding more names, please. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

"Cheers", Churchill said to his son:

Lord Randolph was drunk. "Father", Winston said, "I'm now the Prime Minister of Great Britain". "Well, Lord Randolph replied, "for my part you're still nothing".

I don't remember where I read this anecdote. But it clearly shows how easy it is to belittle people. Quite effortlessly one can dismiss and traduce values. I write this because a list of notable CPU alumni was removed by Wiki editor Will Beback. As the editor explains, these "supposed alumni do not appear to be notable". I agree that it is better when statements come with links. However, all the CPU alumni who were listed are noted and highly accomplished individuals. Information about them is verifiable on line. Morover, even entries on CPU alumni, with internal and external links, such as Wallace W. Rhodes [[14]], and by now, John Gray, David Hawkins and Jerry Bergman vanished from the Wiki article.

The CPU story is most complex, and like everything else, it deserves fair treatment and honest presentation.

Paul Hartal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Hartal (talk • contribs)

23 June, 2006

What was the source for these alumni? The same editor added Dr. Brody, who turned out to not be an alumni after all, even though he lists it on his CV. Is there a list of alumni? -Will Beback 03:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PS: the names of Gray, Hawkins, and Bergamn were removed in this edit here:[15]. I've reverted it. -Will Beback 03:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Brody and CPU

Steven A. Brody, M.D., Ph.D.,holds a Bachelor's degree and a Master's degree from Brown University in Providence, RI. After earning a medical degree from Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, he completed his Internship at Yale and his OB/GYN Residency at Stanford University Medical Center(1986). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paul Hartal (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure why we're still discussing Brody, but here's what his CV says, [16]

• Doctorate:
• Columbia Pacific University
• School of Health Services Administration
• Novato, California
• Ph.D. March 31, 2001

Perhaps no one told him that his degree was revoked. -Will Beback 01:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Any Ideas? asks Wiki Editor Will Beback regarding Dr. Brody's CPU PhD, 15 June, 2006. The editor cut short my previous comment. In any case, Dr. Brody's PhD might be valid after all but rather than a CPU PhD it might be a Columbia Commonwealth University (CCWU) PhD. At the time that Dr. Brody graduated CPU incorporated itself as a different school under the name CCWU. CCWU is licensed in Wyoming as a degree granting institution and has applied for regionally accredited status. --Paul Hartal 02:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a school called CPU in California could be mistaken for a school called CCWU in Wyoming. Most diplomas have the name of the granting institution written on them. -Will Beback 04:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Today CPU and CCWU are indeed two separate schools, with entirely different names. Still, after the closing of CPU in California, the owners reopened the school in Montana under the same name. Later, they changed its name to CCWU and licensed it in Wyoming. A group of CPU graduates, whose degrees were revoked by California due to the closing of the university in 1997, opted for legalizing and validating their degrees through CCWU. The case of Dr. Brody's revoked Ph.D. resoundingly demonstrates the absurdity of rendering illegal the academic credentials of an internationally renowned physician and scholar by judicial means. The prosecutor who called CPU degrees absolutely worthless did not read a word of Dr. Brody's dissertation. CPU was closed on the basis of a fabricated report in which independent critics found over 80 errors of facts. These errors of fact make the document virtually worthless. Apart from this, the fundamental philosophical and pedagogical premises of the report are all debatable. Above, I have already pointed out some of these. A so far overlooked aspect of the report involves critical details that confuse quality with quantity. For example, it singles out for criticism a CPU dissertation, which, disregarding the appendixes and the bibliography, comprises only sixty pages. Now, mind you, Einstein's doctoral thesis, " A New Definition of Molecular Dimensions", submitted to the University of Zurich in 1905, was only 21 page long.

--Paul Hartal 01:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• A group of CPU graduates, whose degrees were revoked by California due to the closing of the university in 1997, opted for legalizing and validating their degrees through CCWU.

How did that work? -Will Beback 02:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

With a MSEd and MSEdAd, I completed all of the PhD requirements from CPU's Administration and Management Program in July 1999 - a most challenging and noteworthy program. Upon learning of the termination of CPU's license, I was able to transfer 48 CPU credits to Columbia Commonwealth University and re-earn a PhD October 2003. Although additional learning is valuable, the additional cost and time could have been very beneficially utilized towards my profession in public education with an earned PhD from CPU. Rosemary Fecteau Ph.D.

The Facts on CPU and CCWU. By late December, 2000, the three owners of CPU had gone their separate ways and CPU closed. Les Carr, one of the founding owners decided to start a school called "CPU Montana" in Missoula, Montana. Carr's attorney sent letters to CPU students who had not finished their degrees, inviting them to complete their degrees at the new institution, but they had to sign off on the legal paperwork. I was one of those students. Within three months, Carr decided to change the name of the new school to Columbia Commonwealth U. This made absolute sense. I consulted with Carr on all of this as I had been working on the worsening CPU image situation since 1999.

The new school "CPU Montana" had no corporate relation or other relationship to the original CPU of California, which was now closed. The other two owners were also gone. Anyone graduating from a "CPU" after December 2000 in fact graduated from what is now called "Columbia Commonwealth U", as did I. They should make arrangements with that institution to have their degrees updated with the proper name. The name "CPU Montana" was changed legally in March 2001 to "Columbia Commonwealth" U. Degrees from that school, for a short while (three months), were imprinted "CPU Montana" (in full text).

Columbia Pacific University is now incorporated as a nonprofit institution and approved by the IRS as a charitable entity that can grant tax-deductible receipts in the USA for donations. CPU is not offering degrees at this time, while carrying out its reorganization. The two names CPU and CCWU should not be intermingled as there is no relationship.

Earon Kavanagh M.S. (PhD Candidate, Tilburg U) Information Officer, CPU Board of Directors

Thanks for that response. Since the CPU Novato was disbanded, I'm not sure what the connection is, if any, to the "new" CPU. Is the new CPU 501(c)(3)? -Will Beback 00:52, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

FACTS: The Old CPU and the new CPU - July 1, 2006 Will: An alumni group that was working to organize the alumni community acquired all of the remaining assets of CPU in early 2005. We now own, watch over and control all CPU graduate records - for over 7000 graduates, and we issue the transcripts; we hold the right to use the course materials, the logo/seal - everything. We are incorporated as a nonprofit in Delaware (state of incorporation only), we operate our transcript service out of Florida and are registered with the Secretary of State to do our nonprofit transcript business there. We are also tax-exempt under IRS 501 (c) and can issue tax receipts to CPU alumni members and other donors in the USA. We, in effect, are seriously engaged in the corporate and institutional turnaround of Columbia Pacific University. We have several committees working on several areas (see www.cpuniv.us). However, as we are still engaged in early stages of redevelopment, CPU is not currently offering courses or degrees. CPU never died, although it was certainly mortally wounded for political reasons before it could come into its stride. I have been working on reinvigorating CPU, chiefly in the interests of the alumni community since 1996, when I first got word of the failed reapproval visit in California. I am well known in the distance education community for these activities. The reinvigoration project picked up speed after CPU closed in California in 2000. In 2000 I conceived and started www.altcpualumni.org as a way to tell the CPU story, based primarily on records. In 2003 the organizing began with a group of senior alumni. The pace again picked up speed in 2004 when we formed a governing board. In 2005 we began to make achievements in our governance structure. The founders of CPU made some strategic mistakes: they did not acquire nonprofit status, and they did not seek accreditation as they got too comfortable under the early California regulations (my analysis). We are merely doing what should have been done years ago. There are over 7000 graduates of CPU, most of them American. We hold consumer interests as our highest priority. The state's failing of CPU did not take consumer interests fully into account. CPU should have been put on probation when it failed to meet the new regulations in 1995, as it had a successful site reapproval visit in 1991. How do I know this? I have the records of the visit and the recommendations. Probation is standard practice with the regional accreditors, as students, alumni and other consumers are deemed as important stakeholders. An institution warrants its degree holders; if an institution fails, its graduates tend to go down with it. The state's behavior with CPU was/is unfair and perhaps unethical in education practice. A failing school should be given at least one change to make needed adjustments.

Earon Kavanagh M.S. (PhD Candidate, Tilburg U) Information Officer, CPU Board of Directors —Preceding unsigned comment added by Earon (talk • contribs)

[edit] New comment

This entry on CPU is completely non-neutral and ought to be so noted. Most of the material is from the defenders of the discredited and disreputable CPU. There is no balance of viewpoints from others.

The fact that the article attempts to use the "honorary" conferring of one of its bogus doctorates on a public personage who likely never heard of it speaks volumes about CPU's reputability. There is no evidence anywhere except on CPU-promoting web sites that Harold Wilson, former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, ever had anything to do with CPU.

The fact that CPU is defended by a "graduate" who cannot tell the difference between "there" and "their" speaks to the quality of the "education" the "students" of CPU purchased.

24.20.176.2 20:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)Legitimate Learning

[edit] The Libellous Claims of "Legitimate Learning"

Hiding behind a pompous pseudonym, “Legitimate Learning” makes irresponsible, false and libellous accusations against Columbia Pacific University. He ignores the fact that in 1986 CPU received full institutional approval from the California State Department of Education and that the school’s approved status was the equivalent of regional accreditation in the US. CPU degrees earned between 1978 and 1997 are legal and valid.

Ironically, Legitimate Learning calls “for balance of viewpoints”, which is certainly not his forte, as can be seen from his defamatory conclusions regarding CPU because of a typo made by one of its graduates.

“Legitimate Learning” expresses his biased opinion and demonstrates his sloppy research skills regarding Harold Wilson’s affiliation with CPU. Contrary to his claim, the former British Prime Minister was an Honorary Fellow of Columbia Pacific University. The award was conferred on him at the CPU Degree Ceremonies held in October 1983 in Birmingham, England. In addition to Harold Wilson, other distinguished leaders also held Honorary CPU Fellowships, among them David Attenborough, the world famous naturalist, and Jill Knight, M.B.E. M.P., Member of Parliament for Edgbaston, Birmingham. Documented evidence for this can be found, for example, in the 1984-1985 General Catalogue of CPU (page 14). The 1985 edition of Bear’s Guide to Non-Traditional College Degrees by John Bear mentions Harold Wilson’s Honorary CPU Fellowship (page 96). Moreover, in an article of August 5, 1983, published in The Times Educational Supplement in England, Sarah Bayliss reported that CPU was a serious non-traditional university, “which boasts many reputable names among its faculty and honorary award holders”. She wrote: “Mr. Barry Taylor, chief education officer for Somerset, last autumn accepted an honorary fellowship from CPU”, and so did “Mr. John Tomlinson, chief education officer of Cheshire and president of the Society of Education Officers in 1982”.

Paul Hartal 03:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

I corrected some problems with this article, but I think it needs a reorganization and minor clean-up. In first read it appears to have some slight POV issues as well (perhaps the tone of the article is a bit negative). As one example of the clean-up needed, there is this sentence: "discovered eight permit-less dormitories on Carr's property at 148 Wilson Hill Rd." However, Carr is not identified. Who is this? I'm adding a cleanup tag to the article. Isoxyl 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Proposed Cleanup

The full name of Carr, mentioned in the article, is Les Carr, PhD, a graduate of Vanderbilt University in clinical psychology and education. A former Dean and Academic Vice President of Salve Regina College, RI, and President of Lewis University, Ill., Dr. Carr was a Co-founder of CPU and its Dean of Faculty. Your observation, Isoxyl, about the negative tone of the article is correct. As a matter of fact CPU has suffered a great injustice. Consider, for example, the judge’s vulgar, non sequitur and fallacious ruling: “The decision is not whether or not the students are dissatisfied. I mean that is not the test. It’s like saying, you know, that prostitution should not be illegal because the customers are satisfied”. Equating the serious, legitimate and legal learning efforts of thousands of accomplished CPU students with prostitution? Mind you, student satisfaction and performance are a crucially important factor in measuring a school’s success. Make a web search and you will find an amazing number of very successful people with CPU degrees. The closure of CPU was an unfair and politically tainted act. In the CPU trials neither students nor faculty were invited to testify.

Paul Hartal 23:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the charges of libel require actually being against a person by name in public, and not against a pseudonym on a wikipedia talk page. I think this battle should be de-escalated here on Wikipedia. Certainly we can all agree that CPU had some controversy and has had its recognition by CA withdrawn. I don't think the article should contain anything about whether this is just or not. Just the facts, ma'am. BTW, I am checking out of this debate, on a wikipedia break. Isoxyl 21:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I would like to point out that legal threats are looked upon quite harshly by the administration and other users here, and can result in sanctions as serious as indefinite blocking of your IP. I'd like to echo Isoxyl's admonition: please don't escalate this any further. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Isoxyl and Skinwalker

The Oxford Dictionary of Current English defines libel as “published false statement damaging to person’s reputation, act of publishing it; false defamatory statement or representation”. “Legitimate Learning” did make false, defamatory statements damaging the reputation of thousands of CPU graduates. They are libelous accusations, which I have refuted with facts, without any legal (or illegal) threats! On the other hand, it is you who have threatened me with “sanctions as serious as indefinite blocking” of my IP. Why, because I called a spade a spade and put the record straight?

Your insistence on presenting “just the facts” is rather naïve. We are constantly bombarded with myriads of “facts”, which are not necessarily true. Take, for example, an honest look at the selectively presented “facts” about CPU in the media to see how an “objective approach” results in a biased subjective picture. Also, in the introductory first paragraph of the CPU entry we read: “It received heavy criticism and was later closed by the state”. While this is a fact, it is also a misinforming falsity, because the 88 points of the “heavy criticism” have been challenged and refuted by independent expert critics. This can be verified from documents published on Wiki itself. Furthermore, it is important to bear in mind that the American judicial system is not about justice but about power, an arm-wrestling match aimed at winning the case. CPU lost in the game due to a miscarriage of justice. Unfortunately, many fail to make the distinction that it is the school, which lost its State recognition and not its alumni. The California State Department of Education supervised, approved and praised CPU. It endorsed CPU curricula and degrees as equivalents of regionally accredited institutions in the USA. CPU degrees awarded between 1978 and 1997 are legal and valid.

Paul Hartal 19:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not the place to appeal a legal verdict. Our job is simply to summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. We cannot decide whether or not criticisms and legal decisoins have been refuted by expert critics. We can only report both sides of the matter. -Will Beback 23:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I echo Paul's statements and sentiments. This article is not neutral. It makes it appear as though CPU degrees are garbage, when that is not true. By maintaining malicious and false statements, while blocking corrections you are hurting all CPU alumni, me included. 74.138.83.249 04:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Curt Hawley curthawley@curthawley.com

[edit] Serious POV Problems

This article has, as the heading indicates, serious POV problems. I have appended an NPOV tag, and I enumerate my reasons as follows:

• The introductory paragraph obfuscates the reasons why CPU was closed. The intro is also fairly bloated: it does not really matter in what state the organization is currently organized in, nor is it important to note that the institution was "comparable to regionally accredited schools". The link that describes CPU as a "pioneer" in distance learning leads to an uncited bit of promotional material on [degree.com], where for-profit universities, term-paper/plagiarism clearinghouses, and outright diploma mills are advertised for. I am also not sure that CPU Press requires mention, as it has only published one book since its reorganization.
• The History section contains many uncited claims. Someone has already gone through and appended cite needed tags where necessary. Furthermore, the citations that are provided link directly to CPU promotional material, which itself is largely uncited. I propose that uncited claims be excised if proper citations are not provided. I also believe that citations from altpcualumni.org fail WP:RS criteria for reasons of bias, lack of editorial oversight, lack of replicability, and possibly lack of corroboration.
• In the "1994 application, 1994 and 1995 site visits" section, recent additions that cite US News and World Report and Times Educational Supplement articles are not properly cited. The recent change of "records" to "claims" is of questionable validity, since there are presumably records available of CPU awarding degrees for the listed dissertations.
• The list of "Notable Alumni" is of particular concern. Many of these alumni are not notable enough to have their own wikipedia entries. Most of the other alumni have vanity pages that were created by User:Paul Hartal (in particular, Roger J. Geronimo, Rochelle Holt, and Wallace W. Rhodes) presumably for the purpose of making these people "notable". These individual entries have been challenged (see their respective talk pages) for not meeting WP:N requirements. I propose that we excise any "notable alumnus" who does not merit their own non-vanity wikipedia entry.
• Finally, I am concerned that User:Paul Hartal's editing of this page constitutes a conflict of interest. Mr. Hartal is a member of the board of directors of the reorganized CPU[17], and his edits to this article have consisted of uncritical advocacy for CPU. I believe that we should incorporate pro-CPU material into the article to maintain a neutral point of view, but the laundry list of questionably notable alumni, misuse of sources, and weasel words that plague this article serve no one except those who have a vested interest in the academic standing (or lack thereof) of CPU.

I have listed my objections in the hopes that we can avoid sweeping, unilateral changes, and that we can discuss how best to put forth a neutral view of this article's subject. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

These are legitimate concerns. The overall tone of the article is very defensive. Many, if not most, of the sources are to CPU-related websites. The editing of the article by Paul Hartal does appear solely devoted to promoting a pro-CPU POV. Due to his conflict of interest he should not be so invovled in editing the CPU article. -Will Beback · † · 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have invited Paul Hartal to discuss my objections, as I would like to get his input. I will wait another 24 hours before implementing the changes I proposed. Cheers, Skinwalker 23:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

That seems fair. He appears to be active so I don't know why he hasn't responded. -Will Beback · † · 01:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Pioneering Vision of CPU: A Response to Critics

Hello Skinwalker and Will Beback,

Thank you for your critique. I do support your proposals to improve the Wikipedia entry on CPU by making it more scholarly, less biased and more accurate. Although I do welcome constructive criticism, I also must say that your comments show worrisome signs of one-signedness and prejudice against CPU. Also, I find it very unfair that you accuse me of being an uncritical defender of CPU. I have absolute respect for intellectual honesty based on solid facts, responsible truth and fair judgment. This is exactly the reason that I became involved in editing this entry. Prior to the protests of CPU graduates, Wikipedia portrayed the school as "a notorious diploma mill". Mind you, not all facts have the same ontological status of truth, and Wiki has incorporated a lot of misinformation into the construction of this article, selective facts listed out of context, even scandal-mongering yellow journalism, such as the sully Point Reyes Light articles of December 24, 1997 and December 30, 1999.

I agree that calling CPU a "notorious diploma mill" was inappropriate, since our sources only refer to it as a "diploma mill". As a source, Point Reyes Light passes WP:RS standards - it is a well-respected local newspaper that has won the Pulitzer Prize and has editorial oversight, corroboration, etc. We are not here to debate the "ontological status of truth"; a common misconception of WP:NPOV is the impossibility of true neutrality. As encyclopedists, we describe what reliable primary and secondary sources say about a subject, and leave the arguments about the nature of truth to entries on ontology, media bias, constructivist epistemology, etc. Skinwalker 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to your posture, this is very much about the "ontological status of truth", because truth and fact are intertwined. Mind you, a diploma mill is a bogus school that sells fake degrees. On the other hand, the fact is that CPU for many years was a California accredited (approved) school where students worked hard for their degrees [18]. The court acknowledged this and ruled accordingly that CPU degrees of 1978-1997 are legally valid. Therefore not only the adjective "notorious" was unacceptable. Calling CPU a diploma mill is also "inappropriate" and defamatory. While absolute neutrality is impossible, respect for fact and truth is. Moreover, respect for fact and truth is an intellectual, ethical and judicial imperative. Your opinion of The Point Reyes Light (PRL) and the Pulitzer Prize also deserve a response. Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst are among the originators of yellow journalism, reports based on unethical practices. History has recorded, for example, their infamous role in the outbreak of the Spanish-American War by publishing jingoistic, sensationalist stories and even outright lies. The PRL continues this tradition. "Journalists are supposed to have a bias", says its editor and publisher on a website. So, unfortunately, winning the Pulitzer Prize does not warrant responsible journalism. Rather, it can turn a newspaper into a respected store of authoritative twists and lies. The reports published in the PRL about CPU are scandal-mongering revilements, which are sometimes regurgitated uncritically by others on line and in the media. My letter to the PRL setting the record straight about CPU has not been published, which confirms again the paper's contempt for journalistic integrity. Paul Hartal 23:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Both of you as editors hide your true identities and this does not guarantee your "neutrality" at all. Moreover, the fact that you allowed the description of CPU as a "notorious diploma mill" proves either that you did not do your homework, or that you have an agenda, or both. Before the closing of CPU, its graduates in psychology, for example, were eligible to sit for therapist license. In 1986 California granted full institutional approved status to CPU and this was equivalent to regional accreditation. This is a very important and documented fact, but you assert that it is not important. Your position indicates that you do have an agenda, namely the demolition of CPU's academic caliber and public recognition.

I choose to employ a pseudonym to identify myself on Wikipedia - I have edited controversial articles in the past and have received physical threats due to this (check the talk archives of Veganism for the sordid details). I would very much prefer that I don't give out identifying personal details about myself as a result. I don't think this says anything about my neutrality. Plenty of people edit Wikipedia without revealing their identity and have no problem sticking to WP:NPOV.

We do not have a reliable source that says that state approval is equivalent to regional accreditation. I read the 1986 PDF on the CPU website - it says "consistent in quality" and is fairly vague about what this means.

I'd like to assure you that I don't have an anti-CPU agenda. I never attended CPU, nor do I know any employees or alumni in real life. What I am concerned with is presenting a verifiable, neutral picture of Wikipedia topics - check my edit histories. Skinwalker 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerning the equivalency of approval and accreditation, the adjective 'comparable' provides further clarification. Among other things, Full Institutional Approval pursuant to California Education Code Section 94310(b) means: "The course for which the degree is granted achieves its professed or claimed academic objective for higher education, with verifiable evidence of academic achievement comparable to that required of graduates of other recognized schools accredited by an appropriate accrediting commission recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Committee of Bar Examiners for the State of California" [19] .

The key word in the clause is 'comparable'. It is synonymous with the adjectives 'similar', 'matching' and 'equivalent'. The United States Department of Education recognized CPU as an accredited institution, as evidenced by its inclusion in the Higher Education Directory, The HEP, published by Higher Education Publications, Washington, DC, 1984. CPU was also listed in Petterson's American Education, Vol LXXXII. And here is another relevant item, an editorial published on August 30, 2004 in the Macomb Daily. Defending the integrity of Macomb Community College President Albert L. Lorenzo, the newspaper observes that "in the early 1990s he looked for a good correspondence institution. He called the Michigan Department of Education for a recommendation, and Columbia Pacific University was suggested. Lorenzo completed his degree at CPU in 1993". [20]. Please, see also my own letter on the Al Lorenzo case, which was published in the Macomb Daily, January 15, 2005, [21]. Paul Hartal 02:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of pseudonyms, Paul, are you IP 70.81.16.211? The talk page for the Wikipedia entry about you identifies you as such. If not, from the pattern of contributions from that IP, that anonymous user appears to be your biggest fan.

- Kelly Ramsey 21:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Mr./Ms. Ramsey,

Calling a stranger by first name can be interpreted as a gesture of friendliness, seeking intimacy in an alienated electronic world, and also as a sign of patronizing arrogance. Thank you for paying me so much personal attention. However, your ad hominem weasel comment has nothing to do with this forum and impairs the value of your participation in the discussion.

Paul Hartal 16:51, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul Hartal, then, please see wp:civ.

To clarify, your posting as Paul Hartal, IP 70.80.42.96, and IP 70.81.16.211 has nothing to do with the utility of your contributions. Those stand on their own. (Hopefully this will alleviate your concerns about your arguments being a target of ad hominem.) I raise this issue for two reasons: #1, I sought to demonstrate the inconsistency of your pseudonym standard in the hopes that you'll not use it again to belittle your fellow contributors. #2, I sought to give you a gentle hint (which was, in retrospect, too vague) that editing the same article - especially the article about oneself - with multiple names/IPs can look very, very bad. - Kelly Ramsey 18:36, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Ramsey,

Your hostile words clearly prove their ad hominem nature, and they indeed look very, very bad.

In editing Wikipedia I make mistakes. But I do not use pseudonyms. Nor do I "belittle" my "fellow contributors". I stand for fairness in my criticism and support it by facts. Are you denying my right for evidence-based and responsible free speech, or to have a different opinion? Furthermore, if I have inadvertently violated Wikipedia code of regulations, why is it that I hear about it only now, and not from someone else but from you, and exactly in this specific context? It does not look good at all!

Please, note that I am a man of peace and harmony. Along with Lao Tzu, the founder of Tao, I believe that quarrelsome people are not wise, and wise people are not quarrelsome. So I am here fighting for CPU not because I am quarrelsome but because I stand for principles and I have a sense of justice.

CPU was not a 'phony’ university, and its degrees are not 'fraudulent'. A search with Google Scholar for CPU dissertations will immediately prove this. And the claim that a Spanish dissertation was supervised by instructors who did not speak Spanish is a myth. The thesis advisor was fluent in Spanish and part of the thesis itself was written in English. Although it is true that a Visiting Committee found a doctoral thesis comprising of 60 pages (plus appendixes), it is noteworthy that Einstein's 1905 dissertation at the University of Zurich was only a 21 page paper and the authorities did not close the school. On the whole, a CPU degree was earned by meaningful and hard scholarly work and it is legally valid. However, because of the court battles, the accusations and the closing of the school, a tragedy befallen its 7500 graduates. Let me illustrate this with the example of marriage ending in divorce. In the beginning the husband calls his wife "sweetheart" and "darling", but when the problems arise he calls her a "bitch". Yet, they are the same people. And it is the same State of California that accredited and closed CPU. I saw once a Texas university catalogue listing on its faculty a professor with a CPU degree. Nowadays, Texas lists CPU in a group of "Fraudulent" or "Substandard" schools. The darling became a bitch.

Paul Hartal 07:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wp:civ. Please. You aren't helping your case. And should you discover reliable secondary sources to document these claims, please feel free to contribute to the actual article.

- Kelly Ramsey 07:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Kelly Ramsey,

It is quite ironic that the blog manager of "Bark at the Hole" teaches "civility". [22]

The name of the blog shows your contempt for courteous human communication. Besides, you neglected to disclose your "Bark at the Hole" connection to the readers of Wikipedia and that you are not a neutral contributor to this discussion. Your prejudice is clearly demonstrated on your blog, which spreads defamatory misinformation about CPU. Among other things you fail to mention the fact that CPU degrees issued before June 25, 1997 are legally valid. [23]

Withholding the truth is an unethical practice. Moreover, by not respecting the legal status of CPU degrees in California you demonstrate your disdain for a judicial verdict. As a matter of fact, you position yourself above the law. This places you in the company of narrow-minded fanatics engaged in an academic witch hunt. Mind you, CPU bashing is not about the quality of CPU education but about the politics of higher education, which is monopolized by the national or regional accrediting agencies. Accreditation is a voluntary process in the US, which became a national effort only in the 1960s after the Soviet success in space.

I would like to remind you the undisputable fact that publishing a false and defamatory statement damaging a person's reputation is libelous, and libel is a crime. Please, note that Wikipedia forbids the publication of libelous or potentially libelous writings. It is important to bear in mind that the legal status of CPU degrees outside of California is irrelevant here. Different states might have different laws. However, it is noteworthy that the Office of Degree Authorization (ODA) in Oregon was sued by the "unaccredited" Bob Jones University for discrimination. ODA lost in the court. [24], [25]

Paul Hartal 19:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Please, read wp:civ, wp:agf, and especially wp:legal. Be nice. If you should ever discover reliable sources to document any of your claims regarding CPU, including and especially any reliable sources that contradict any edits I have made, please don't hesitate to contribute to the article. - Kelly Ramsey 20:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Paul - you're been warned about this before. Do not make legal threats. I would also point out that you have not disclosed your membership in the board of directors of the reconstituted CPU. Considering this, calling someone who blogs about Wikipedia "unethical" is particularly incivil. Cheers, Skinwalker 22:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Skinwalker, Will Beback and Kelly Ramsey,

As I have pointed it before, I am not making a legal threat by calling a spade a spade. I also have clearly stated my affiliation with CPU on this discussion panel, and the links that I provided to CPU sites make it redundant to discuss details. Stating that I am connected to CPU, as I did, is enough. By the way, all my work for CPU is voluntary and I do not receive any financial compensation.

I am in full support of civility and hope that you and I will be able to see each other as friends! Paul Hartal 21:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Further evidence of bias comes from your denial of the notability of such people as Roger Geronimo, Wallace W. Rhodes and Rochelle Lynn Holt. The latter, for example, is an author of more than 30 books ("Find in the Library" gives about 50 items linked to her name). She is also an important poet, ranked first among major American poets in a Judson Jerome nation wide survey for Writer's Digest. But, again, according to you, she is not important.

The Writer's Digest article is not linked on Ms. Holt's entry. Furthermore, prolific writing is decidedly not a factor in WP:Notability criteria. A notable person, by WP:N standards, needs to have articles, books, etc written about them. You, for example, meet notability requirements, since you have been the topic of media attention. I would have preferred that you stay on the list of notable graduates, but I will respect your decision to remove your name. Skinwalker 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

As to my own listing among the Notable CPU alumni, please, note that I do not know who put my name there and I would like to remove it from the list! I do not want to use the CPU article for self-promotion.

Concerning the CPU Press let me point out that it has published a number of books, including volumes by Michael J. Pagliaro, Richard Crews and Rachelle Lynn Holt, as well as the recent book by Allen W. Jang. Please, check with Find in a Library and other sources. Apart from this, the CPU Press also published a periodical on Holistic Health, as well as the CPU Review, a literary journal.

Plato long ago observed that money debases culture. So, while I agree that advertising is not neutral, your objection to the use of commercial sources is full of holes. You cite newspapers and other media in Wiki and they do accept advertising . Furthermore, what is getting published in the media is a selective thing because economic forces influence and control the information available to the public. Consider also the vicious circle of how one achieves clout and fame. For example, the phenomenal success of The Da Vinci Code has resulted from a very successful marketing campaign and not from its superior literary quality over thousands of other interesting and good books.

I don't object per se to the use of commercial sources, but degree.com is really not the best site to use as a source for CPU's achievements in distance education. They link to known diploma mills and sites that encourage plagiarism, and the source needs to go. Skinwalker 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The current presentation of the CPU article in Wikipedia is certainly less than satisfactory. However, I see the issue in a very different light than you do. Compellingly significant in this regard is the complete absence of discussion on the pioneering role that CPU has played in the historical development of distance education. CPU had a unique vision. Richard Crews, MD, a Harvard-trained psychiatrist and president of CPU in his book, Modern Higher Education (CPU Press, 1993), identified "the courage to think independently" as a salient component of the university's vision [26]. Another pivotal element of the unique CPU vision was its holistic philosophy in education. As part of the CPU requirements of graduation, every student had to take a course in "Healthscription", an individualized wellness plan and guide to improve health. A tenured professor of law at Suffolk University in Boston, David Yamaha acknowledges the innovative legacy of CPU. In his "Annotated Bibliography on Higher and Adult Education and Social Change", 2005, he points out that CPU "quickly grew into one of the most popular distance learning institutions in the world, emphasizing the award of academic credit for previous work and life experience" [27].

I would like to add that today many established colleges and universities jumped on the band wagon offering distance education that emulates the trail-blazing programs developed by CPU.

I haven't yet seen a reliable source that documents the trail-blazing programs you speak of. Skinwalker 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

A key problem, as I see it, involves the misguided POV that there is enough known about CPU from official government publications or partisan sources to produce a reliable picture on the school. This is not so. A great deal of material is missing from the Internet and most researchers have no idea what to look for even in libraries. Consequently, unless you also have an agenda to pursue here, one should hope that you would welcome the opportunity to tap into the resources of information available from those who really know the CPU experience, from the inside, rather than to dismiss them as “biased”.

For the sake of drawing a more objective picture and to form a well-informed opinion on CPU, it is necessary to study the errors revealed in “Response to the Report of the Visiting Committee”, a key document that refutes point by point the biased Report of the 1995 Visiting Committee, which was used in the court to close CPU [28].

Some of the absurd claims in the Visiting Committee’s Report (VCR): a) Harvard-trained psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Crews, MD, was unfit to serve as president of CPU because he was not a PhD (there are established university presidents without doctorates).

b) The two black deans of CPU held “unaccredited” doctorates from the German University of Bremen and the British University of Wales (both universities are fully accredited and internationally known). These false accusations, in addition to 84 other errors of fact, rendered the VCR entirely worthless. Nevertheless they were successfully used in the closing of CPU. So, among other things, the judge was able to rule: CPU failed to employ duly qualified faculty.

Documents prove that CPU was slated for closing by California bureaucrats regardless of its success in distance education, or because of it. CPU announced in the summer of1995 its intention to apply for candidacy of accreditation. It complained that fast changing state regulations prevent the school from attaining regional accreditation in a well-planned manner. A few weeks later the negative VCR put an end to CPU plans for accreditation.

It is also crucial to consider the political background that led to the closing of CPU. Documents show the adverse relations, dating back to the 1970s, between Dr. Richard Crews and Deputy Attorney General Asher Rubin. Moreover, Governor Pete Wilson ordered the dismantling of CPPVE in Bill 2960 for persecuting private postsecondary institutions, as documented on [29].

Paul Hartal 17:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

As User:Will Beback has noted, this is not the place to appeal CPU's legal woes. We can use some of the information provided at altcpualumni.org, but it cannot be the single source for this article. Cheers, Skinwalker 03:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not appeal a legal verdict, I describe a public state of affairs based on facts, particularly, a miscarriage of justice . Your argument is analogous to saying: Wikipedia is not the the place to discuss a disease, or medical problems. For that one should go to a doctor or hospital. Cheers,

Paul Hartal 17:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The viewpoint that the closure of CPU was a "miscarriage of justice" is just that, a viewpoint. It's important to include it, just as it's important to include the viewpoint of the officials and to balance those and any other viewpoints. We can't take sides, or give undue weight to any one view. -Will Beback · † · 19:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone should review the Wikipedia guidelines of Assume good faith, Civility, and Wikipedia is not a battleground. On an article's discussion page, imputing ulterior motives or incompetence to those with whom one disagrees is neither helpful nor appropriate.

The fact that certain graduates and staff of CPU disagree with agencies' and courts' findings and rulings, and have taken it upon themselves to self-publish various critiques as part of a campaign to rehabilitate CPU's academic reputation, is in all likelihood notable enough to mention in this article. An assessment of who was correct and who was incorrect is not. (Nor are any editorial accusations, opinions, speculations, "slanders", "libels", or complaints about various reporters', officials', or institutions' hidden motives.) Drawing a conclusion by comparing California authorities' arguments and findings to CPU advocates' arguments and findings would constitute original research, and original research is not appropriate for a Wikipedia article.

The guidelines for evaluating self-published sources, including advocates' personal or organizational web sites, are also worth reviewing. The only evident defenses of CPU have come from either CPU itself or CPU graduates defending the reputations of their degrees. As primary sources, these defenses are of limited utility:

Wikipedia articles may use primary sources, so long as they have been published by a reputable publisher, but only to make descriptive points about the topic. Any interpretive claims require secondary sources.

As reliable secondary sources, these defenses rate poorly. They lack vetting by a scholarly community, proceed from a declared bias, lack peer review or other fact-checking editorial oversight, and apparently lack recognition by other reliable sources.

Instead of additional advocacy, this article needs additional reliable secondary sources. The current complete lack thereof in CPU's defense makes a poor case for the quality of a CPU education. As does, inadvertently, the tone of the above screeds.

- Kelly Ramsey 00:44, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some things that need doing

• Third-party reliable sources for the "comparable to accredited institutions" statements and analyses
• Non-boostery elaboration of CPU history, 1978-1994
• Legal status of CPU and CCWU degrees in states besides California and Texas

CPU and CCWU degrees are not valid in Oregon.[30] Scroll down the list to find both their entries. The list does not discriminate between pre- and post-1997 degrees. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Oregon also has a pretty stringent law on disclosure of non-accredited degrees:

In addition, an individual using an unaccredited degree, even if the employer allows use of such degrees, must disclose on resumes, letterheads, business cards, announcements and advertisements that "(Name of school) does not have accreditation recognized by the United States Department of Education and has not been approved by the Office of Degree Authorization." ORS 348.609(2)(a).

.

Violators are guilty of a class B misdemeanor. Wow. Skinwalker 20:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, CPU/CCWU degrees may not be valid in Maine.[31] Both institutions appear on Maine's list of unaccredited schools. However, the wording of Maine's non-accredited school statutes are not as clear as those in Oregon; they have a large list of unaccredited schools, but they do not say whether degrees from them are valid for state employment in Maine. Cheers, Skinwalker 19:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

CPU and CCWU degrees are not valid in Michigan for civil service positions.[32] Skinwalker 19:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• What happened with CCWU and Montana?
• What happened with CCWU and Malawi?
• The current status of CCWU's efforts to obtain accreditation, to comply with changes in Wyoming law

• The sources for this material:

On August 5, 1983, Sarah Bayliss published an article on CPU in the Times Educational Supplement of London, reporting that CPU was an innovative school for accomplished individuals, “specializing in the validation of experimental learning, which now operates in Britain, and which boasts many reputable names among its faculty and honorary award holders.” (Bayliss, Sarah. "Where experience counts for a lot", The Times Aducational Supplement, August 5, 1983) She also pointed out that Professor Tudor Jones, Dean of the School of Theology of Bangor University, had examined CPU PhD theses “and found them to be at least of the standard that he would expect at his own university”. An article published in the October 15, 2001, issue of U.S.News & World Report noted that students worked hard for their degrees at CPU (Reference: Mannix, Margaret. "Buyers be wary", U.S. News @ World Report, October 15, 2001, p.68).

Also, history breakdown by type of CA state licensing:

• 1978-1983 (what kind of operation under "Authorization"?)
• 1983-1986 (during "Institutional Approval" for BA & MA in "Administration and Management")
• 1986-1989 (during 3-year "Full Institutional Approval" for various degrees)
• 1989-1991 (what kind of operation between expiration of '86 approval and apparent '91 approval?)
• 1991-1995 (what kind of "approval" under the new laws, and what programs/degrees approved?)

- Kelly Ramsey 08:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for inadvertently deleting the bottom part of this section. This is the first time that I try to edit reference of printed text for citation in Wikipedia and I do not know why a portion got deleted.

No worries, there was just an extra "ref" tag that was sending the subsequent text into a footnote. - Kelly Ramsey 21:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

---

CCWU is not CPU. These are two entirely different and separate institutions. The CCWU story might be the subject matter of another article in Wikipedia.

Paul Hartal 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The sources we have thus far say that CCWU and CPU are the same school. Besides the secondary sources that say CPU became CCWU outside of California, there's the history of the original CPU web site (cpuniv.edu): it's Columbia Pacific University in Novato, CA (2000 Dec 04), then Columbia Pacific University in Missoula, MT (2001 Feb 02), and then Columbia Commonwealth University in Missoula, MT (2001 June 17). Same web domain, same people, same text ("wholistic" etc.), and same street address. (There's also John Bear's announcement to alt.education.distance (2000 Dec 01) that CPU had just relocated wholesale to Montana, though of course a newsgroup post wouldn't qualify as a reliable source for the article.)

- Kelly Ramsey 03:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unexplained Deletions

Could you kindly explain to me, why was the commentary under “CAE Critique of the Visiting Committee’s 1975 Report” deleted from the CPU article? The CAE, The Corporation for American Education is a respected and responsible organization and its findings are important in presenting a balanced portrait of the CPU story.

Also why were a whole group of Notable People deleted from the List of Notable alumni? Is it ignorance or careless editing, or their combination, that you would remove from the list of distinguished CPU alumni, for example, Jon Sigurdsson, Minister of Industry and Commerce of the Government of Iceland and former Governor of the nation’s Central Bank? A minister holding key portfolios in the government of a European country is not important? And why David Young does not qualify for the List? This graduate research professor at the University of Florida is also a Broadway actor, author, and producing director of the American College Theatre Festival, involving about 450 colleges and universities with an annual audience numbering more than one million.

You seem to set higher standards for CPU than for other universities. I checked the Notable Graduates Lists at a number of universities featured on Wikipedia, including Brown and Syracuse. What I have found is that Wikipedia presents many people on these lists just because they are associated with the schools. They include faculty professors, deputy deans, engineers, designers, small company presidents, vice presidents of companies, life insurance officers and so forth, without any exceptionally spectacular weight and outstandingly sweeping distinction. How do you explain this discrimination?

Paul Hartal 03:42, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I pared the section about the CPU response quite a bit, and ended up putting a chunk of it immediately following the part describing the visiting committee's negative 1995 report. To flesh out my edit summaries, I see a couple of issues with the full version:

(1) The PDF for CPU's November 1995 response just didn't mention CAE or Smith anywhere. Without verification of Smith and/or CAE not just consulting for pay but coming out and putting their personal and/or business reputations behind CPU, the article really shouldn't draw that conclusion. Not just wp:v but also wp:living seem on point. On a lesser but related point, the PDFs of Smith's resume and CAE's flyer also don't verify that it was Smith/CAE whom CPU hired to consult and write the report.

(2) I removed some examples of CPU responses just because the examples above of committee findings didn't mention them. Having a couple of paragraphs describe some criticisms, then having a couple of subsequent paragraphs respond to different criticisms, is confusing to a reader. ("Wait, somebody said the heads of CPU didn't hold adequate academic degrees? What?")

(3) The paragraph about Dow's testimony alludes to officials having animus against CPU but doesn't verify it - a conclusion that, again, the article should avoid on wp:v and wp:living grounds. There's innuendo from the questioning attorney, and the earnest conclusion of some CPU defenders on the alumni web site, but no verification thus far.

- Kelly Ramsey 02:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CAE Critique of the 1995 Report of the Visiting Committee

In August 1995 the CPPVE Site Visit Committee inspected the CPU campus and found 88 irregularities, which eventuated in the denial of the school’s re-approval, [33], [34].

However, in November 1995 a consulting firm for the US Department of Education and to over 300 colleges and universities, the Corporation for American Education (CAE), [35], conducted an investigation, which challenges and refutes the CPPVE findings.

In the overview of the “Response to the Report of the Visiting Committee”, November 15, 1995, the CAE says: “The Visiting Committee Report on California Pacific University (CPU) of August 23-24, 1995 is grossly in error in most details, as documented in the 86 errors of fact enumerated” in the Response. The CAE concludes that these errors render the CPPVE Visiting Committee’s Report “to be utterly unreliable as an objective and thorough evaluation of CPU”, [36] .

To the CPPVE Report’s accusation that the Chief Academic Officers of CPU do not hold adequate academic degrees, the CAE responds: “The duties of Chief Academic Officer are shared by the Dean of Faculty, Les Carr, PhD, and the President, Richard Crews, MD. Both of these individuals are preeminently well qualified in the behavioral and, specifically, pedagogical sciences.” The CAE document also defends the degrees of Deans Tesfaye Ketsela, PhD, and Fikre Tolossa, PhD, graduates of well-known European universities, namely and respectively, the University of Wales and the University of Bremen.

The CAE Response observes that the CPPVE Visiting Committee’s review of CPU dissertations was based on superficial judgments. In “Error of Fact No. 27”, for example, the Response says, that the complaint about the lack of “evidence of competency in statistical research” is erroneous because “many dissertations do not require statistical analysis”. Errors of Fact No. 28 and No.31 concern the claim that a “dissertation was written in Spanish although the instruction of language at the institution is English and the “course work is completed in a language other than English without appropriately qualified staff”. The Response states that the indicated student participated with faculty who are fluent in Spanish and the university requirements that the abstract be in English were honored”.

The Visiting Committee’s complaint about a student who only completed 17 semester units at CPU is answered in “Error of Fact No. 46”: “The student’s master degree involved completion of 80 semester units, well in access of the 30 required by CPPVE regulations beyond the Bachelor’s Degree”.

The response to the Visiting Committee’s report was signed by CAE president Dan J. Smith. A former adjunct professor at California State University, LA, Smith in the 1980s directed the Fisk University development project and specializes in college management and accreditation.

Ignoring the CAE response, CPPVE director Kenneth Miller, the council’s director issued CPU a Denial of Application for Approval. The 1995 report of the visiting committee was also used in the CPU trials that closed down CPU. [37]

A confidential memo of March 15, 2001 sent to for Les Carr by CPU attorney Orrin Leigh Grover presents a former CPPVE employee’s testimony in court that suggests visiting committee members were selected for their bias against CPU. Betty Dow, PhD, a vocational psychologist and assistant dean with National University was hired by the council in the 1980s. As a post-secondary educational specialist she participated in the site review of CPU and at that time CPU met the regulations, “everything was in compliance”, she testified in court. However, she said in her testimony, in 1992 CPPVE deputy director Sheila Hawkins told her that CPU “were in for a big surprise because they’d never re-approved”. This was three years before the actual site visit of the committee, [38], [39]. Paul Hartal 04:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 1998

If I read the history correctly, CPU had been notified by California that they were no longer approved as of 1997. A page dated December 1998 on the old CPU website titled "Accreditation and Approval" says that they were approved and were in the process of seeking regional accreditation. Is this correct? Is it true that the operators of the school did not inform prospective students that they were no longer approved to operate as a school, or even that the matter was the subject of litigation? Other than this notable omission, do we have any other information about how the school communicated with its alumni, students, and prospective students? Did it refund tuition, etc? I think I've seen some mention of this in sources and/or previous versions of the article. -Will Beback · † · 02:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Tragicomedy of the CPU Witch-hunt: Blaming the Learner for Learning

The Wikipedia article on CPU mentions that the 1995 CPPVE’s “review of CPU listed numerous violations of academic standards, including: One master's-degree student was given credit for ‘a learning contract describing how he would continue taking dance lessons and watch dance demonstrations in order to improve his skills as a Country Western dancer.’" This nonsensical accusation casts a farcical light on the CPU bashers. It blames the learner for learning! A dancer’s professional development obviously can benefit from “taking dance lessons and watch dance demonstrations”. Art schools of many well-known universities offer programs and credits for dance.

Paul Hartal 18:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of Media Misinformation on CPU: The Case of FBI Expert John Bear

The truth is the most valuable thing we have, observed Mark Twain. And he added: Let us economize it. Well, lying by omission is an old practice and the media are good at it. The misinformation published on CPU on line and elsewhere may serve as a classic case in point. The articles below demonstrate how the media mislead the public by twisting, distorting and omitting the facts.

Posted on February 21, 2003, Jim Parson of Pittsburgh’s WTAE.TV tells how he harassed CPU degree holders at Pennsylvania State University and Clarion University. He justified the harassment with the words of “diploma mill expert” John Bear: “Tens and tens of fake degrees being sold”, [40]. As I demonstrate below, Bear in reality praised CPU. In his writings he stresses that the lack of regional “accreditation need not mean that a school is either inferior or illegal”. For his part, CPU was a model non-traditional university.

In an article published in The Daily Californian, July 11, 2005, Josh Keller also describes John Bear as “a leading diploma mill expert”. “Naming a diploma mill to correspond with a prestigious university is common, Bear said”, writes Keller. So the journalist took a list and included among his examples Columbia Pacific University, [41].

The December 11, 2004, editorial in the San Diego Union Tribune (SDUT) was titled, “Academic Fraud: Cracking Down on Diploma Mills”. It describes John Bear as an academic fraud investigator, “who spent a dozen years as the FBI’s principal consultant on diploma mills and fake degrees”. Towards the end of the piece, the article mentions that “in 2001 California cracked down on Columbia Pacific University in Novato, forcing it to shut its in-state operation”. The drift and tenor of the editorial create the impression that John Bear classifies CPU as a diploma mill, [42]. It is noteworthy that I drew the attention of the SDUT editors to the misinformation. Their answer: There is no misinformation in the editorial. They obviously believe that the facts should not interfere with their editorial judgment.The paper refused to publish my letter of protest.

And now let me share with you John Bear’s statements on CPU: “More than 25 years ago, I consulted in the start-up of Columbia Pacific University, founded by two men with impeccable credentials: a Harvard M.D. psychiatrist, and the former president of three regionally-accredited universities. Columbia Pacific was a state-approved university, with more than 30 full-time employees, whose graduates qualified to take the state psychology and other licensing exams”, [43].

The 1982 Bear’s Guide to Non-Traditional Degrees praised CPU for the high academic quality of its staff, “the very personal approach, the valuable learning experience, and the comparatively low costs”. It described CPU as “the largest university in the United States and one of the largest in the world offering non-resident Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctorates. Despite the size, students report an extremely high level of personal attention from the faculty and staff. (The faculty members more than 200, nearly all with traditional Doctorates). Two former presidents of major accredited universities serve as the two Deans of Columbia Pacific, and CPU’s president, Richard Crews, is a prominent psychiatrist with his medical degree from Harvard”. The author said CPU offered degrees in dozens of subject areas and also operated an innovative School of International Law. He stressed “many major universities, including Harvard, Yale and Princeton have expressed a willingness to accept CPU degrees.”

Reference: Bear, PhD, John, Bear’s Guide to Non-Traditional College Degrees: How to get The Degree You Want, Berkeley, California: Ten Speed Press, 1982, p. 96, ISBN 0898150809

Paul Hartal 21:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why was CPU closed

The main entry on CPU is full of errors and inaccuracies. What is the problem with the person who wrote this? Why is the author on a crusade against CPU? It needs much more than clean up. It needs to be completely rewritten. One area that needs to be addressed is: Why was CPU closed? The whole case looks very suspicious and I have yet to learn of a valid reason.

[edit] Many schools have the same problem as CPU

A major problem was CPU relied heavily on part time faculty as do other distance learning schools such as The University of Phoenix, Capella University, Franklin University and other schools. The University of Phoenix, Capella University, and Franklin University all have come under fire for the very same reason. A whole web site titled www.capellauniversity.org/ exists to highlight the problem with Capella. Franklin has also come under fire for hiring unqualified faculty and relying far too much on part time faculty.