Dateline: June 13, 1006

The War on Diploma Mills
Whether They Are or Not

In May, an online blog that fancies itself as a higher education news source, using a national press release from Global Academy Online, Inc., (the world's premier provider of private label online curriculum and instruction, and who had just announced the opening of its unique incubator university), sought to dismiss it as unwanted. Using innuendo and questionable experts, the university was libeled, demeaned and besmirched without mercy.

Not a very nice thing to do to a brand new organization that spent over three years in qualitative research and development. The object of the wrath is a university designed only to be an incubator that both improves the quality and rigor of online course delivery and instruction, and serves as a model for Academy clients and institutions --Not seemingly much wrong with those objectives.

Considering the university had not enrolled one student, does not charge tuition, severely limits the number of students qualified to attend, is a declared non-profit, and was created and established to improve the methodology, technology, and pedagogy of online higher education delivery, it shows all the earmarks of one being no less pure than the driven snow.

Out of nowhere came an alleged reporter who refers to himself as "Big Head" running as lead dog in front of a pack of wolves posing as "diploma mill experts". After the fact, it now seems a larger agenda was at work other than to announce the innovative development of this new organization. The conspiratorial agenda seemed from the getgo to want to destroy this noble effort before it ever managed to get off the ground. It also now seems quite obvious this was clearly the agenda, particularly when viewed in the light of followup comments posted at the end of the article, one incredulously offered by one of those quoted in the article. He added more inaccurate garbage, as if to say, "I didn't pound on it enough, here let me try and punch at it one more time". It is clear that the 'pack' wanted this fledgling, innovative, research endeavor gone. Is it possible that this new university is a genuine threat to their well hidden lack of credibility and to their rehearsed views of the established order of things and the way things are done according to them?

Designed from the beginning to be 'outside the box' of traditional higher education, the last thing an established order wants is some organization with an incredible knowledge base and an army of professionals and doctoral qualified faculty revolutionizing higher education. This groundswell of fresh air is about to force them to take their foot off the necks of small colleges and universities around the world who would be given a LIFE breath to survive, compete, and prosper.

The new university brings to the small colleges and universities the blueprints for survival among the big guys. In other words, it is dangerous. It isn't dangerous to the 'pack' because it has deep pockets, a battery of international lawyers, or even the establishments good housekeeping seal of approval. It is dangerous to them because of what it represents, who it serves, and what it can do to change online higher education.

It has recently come to light, in viewing other blogs who comment freely on the so-called experts whose views were cited about the new university, that either the publication is essentially naive', a traditionalists pawn, or it has been duped. Have they been duped by a bevy of these so-called, self-promoted "experts", a handful of men, whose credentials and agenda, have been severely criticized over and over again?

Ethics as practiced by these critics is essentially non existent. It is obligatory upon any investigator to at least speak with and attempt to secure the reasons for an organizations existence from its principals. Apparently retained by the publication to facilitate its spin and attempted effort to mortally wound the new organization, each alleged expert seemed most willing, but totally uninformed to comment. Not one of them was, or is, an expert in online higher education curriculum or instruction. Yet, each shot from the hip as though they were.

Not the slightest bit of investigative effort went into the imitation "experts" preparation to massage a string of public perceptions they wanted to leave and thereby overlooking entirely what the institution was about, what it would provide, and the qualifications of its administration and faculty. Not one of the pack dared to contact the sponsoring organization, and not one sought to engage in dialogue with an organization whose own history shows a bedrock of a solid ten years of research, education, and information development for the public.

And, as for reporting? Wow. It was indeed a poor excuse of journalism. It was an opinion piece imitating an investigative story. In the study of Communications Ethics one learns very early on what is ethical journalism and what is not. This story clearly was not. The so-called reporter spent four days discussing higher education with the author of this blog, who has, unlike the other so-called experts in the "story", online higher education curriculum and instruction expertise. Choosing to ignore critical and important facts for the sake of editorial spin and perhaps to look bright and informed, the writer took quotes out of context from the greater meaning and shaped a piece that was totally untrustworthy. Unethical? Absolutely.

The late Peter Drucker long warned American higher education that unless it changed education in America, as we know it, it would indeed crumble. Judging by the unethical behavior of this bevy of higher ed's alleged spokespersons, Drucker's prognostication can't be far behind.

Postscript:For a detailed breakdown on what individuals should look for in determining if a college or university might be a diploma mill, click here now.

Next Up: Cheating in America, A National Pastime