NETNOTES: Columbia Pacific University Alumni Info

CPU alum Paul Hartal, PhD, recently went head to head in a debate with someone calling himself “Dan O” from Cactus Thorns. Cactus Thorns seems to be a blog attempting to exude an air of critical journalism without demonstrating any reflexivity around its statements. Case in point: Dan and Cactus Thorns have been making misleading and libelous public statements about CPU graduates, such as purporting that CPU graduates (such as Paul Hartal) hold a “phoney degree”.

Paul reminded “Dan O” (why does Dan not reveal who he is?) that CPU degrees were fully both approved and legal in California until mid-July, 1997. CPU was founded in 1978.

The State’s definition of “Full institutional approval” was as follows:

Full Institutional Approval pursuant to California Education Code section 94310(b):

(1) The institution has facilities, financial resources, administrative capabilities, faculty, and other necessary educational expertise and resources to afford students and require of students, the completion of a program of education which will prepare them for the attainment of a professional, technological, or educational objective, including, but not limited to, a degree.

(2) The curriculum is consistent in quality with curricula offered by appropriate established accredited institutions which are recognized by the United States Department of Education or Committee of Bar Examiners for the State of California and issue the appropriate degree upon satisfactory completion of specific qualitative academic programs, and

(3) The course for which the degree is granted achieves its professional 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.

In accordance with Subdivision (b) of California Education Code Section 94310, this document verifies that the Superintendent of Public Instruction impaneled a qualified visiting committee and conducted a comprehensive onsite qualitative review and assessment of the institution and all programs offered and therefore grants “FULL INSTITUTIONAL APPROVAL”
NO. 1216. June 2, 1986

In 1988 Stewart and Spille (*) wrote that California Education Code Section 94310, which came into being in 1985, significantly improved the California private postsecondary system. The committee that recommended the changes leading to the 1985 act was headed by Richard Crews MD, then president of CPU. Stewart and Spille also implied that members of accredited independent schools in California were against the idea of California approved institutions (approved schools were taking away too much of their business). Based on the results, an effort was made to lobby the government to change the laws again. The lobby was successful and in 1989 new regulations once again arrived. Approved institutions and their graduates would no longer be represented as consistent in quality with accredited institutions and their graduates, even if government appointed visitation committees who made comprehensive onsite qualitative reviews and assessments had said so. Was the new act of 1989 about improving quality in education? No… it was about economics, politics and secret lobbying where one hand washes the other. Approved institutions in California were previously socially constructed as “consistent in quality with … accredited” using qualitative reports, visiting committees and laws. Now they would be socially constructed differently, using the same methods but with changed meanings: approved institutions in California would now be represented as meeting “minimum standards”. How things change.

The end result of the Paul and “Dan O” debate? Cactus Thorns will “stand” by its assertions. We will stand by ours. “Dan O” and Cactus Thorns has asked Paul Hartal not to return to its domain. Dan found our blog “self serving”… just as we find Cactus Thorns opinions to be self serving. Cactus Thorns might want to do a self analysis to examine how they benefit by their published opinions. Apparently Paul, by inviting continued dialogue based on facts, is wasting their time and their readers’ energy. So much for dialogue. We wish them well.

Note: CPU, acting under legal advice, stayed open after mid-July 1997 while its appeal winded through the State courts. CPU’s lawyers were certain that CPU would be vindicated. Three judges that ruled against CPU were former prosecutors from state attorney Rubin’ own district. And when Judge Lynn Duryee ruled against CPU, setting off the institution’s appeal, she also stated as part of her ruling that CPU degrees up until mid-1997 were legal and valid and approved.

Alumni of CPU worked hard for our degrees. This is evident in multiple successful site visits by the State. We feel that the California system ultimately failed thousands of CPU graduates and students and others from approved schools it closed down in the 1990’s. We detest innuendos and discursive positioning tactics such as used by persons such as “Dan O”. Dan frequently references attorney Asher Rubin in his arguments. For a flavor of the pot calling the kettle black, see Asher Rubin’s words on his own education

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/alumni/connection/connect/mycu/12.html

Note on References: All references, mostly scanned original documents, can be found at www.altcpualumni.org under “CPU History”.

* Stewart, David W., & Spille, Henry A. (1988). Diploma Mills: Degrees of Fraud. New York: American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing Company.