Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 June 7

Science desk
< June 6	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 7

Could Harvard revoke a degree of someone?

Can colleges in the US do it? Otherwise, could anyone use his credentials for endorsing creationism, alternative medicine, homeopathy, or whatever other dubious theory? --Yppieyei (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I suppose Harvard can say whatever it likes, but it can't change the past. If it awarded the degree, it will always be true that it awarded the degree.

In practice, revocations of degrees are extremely rare and (almost?) always involve some sort of fraud at the time, not later, that if they had known about it at the time (they now say) they would not have awarded the degree. But even then, my second sentence is still true. --Trovatore (talk) 01:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that any university that revoked someone's degree on the basis that they didn't like what they subsequently said would need a very good lawyer... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

It is my understanding, and I do not have a reference, that an honorary degree, which is unilateral, can be rescinded, but that a degree in course is bilateral, the result of a contract between the student and the university, and, as noted above, can only be revoked if it is shown to have been obtained fraudulently. For instance, if it was found, after granting the degree, that the student had cheated on the comprehensive examination, the degree could be revoked. As to the original question, scholars who have legitimate degrees endorse unsound theories frequently, and I have never heard of anyone threatening to revoke the degree, probably because that is just such an outrageous idea that even academic proponents of political correctness would know that they can't do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

This SDMB thread may be of interest. The leading US case is Waliga v Kent State, and the leading English case is R v Cambridge University (Bentley's Case) (1748) 92 ER 818 (B). The main issue in those cases was due process, but the basic right of a university to revoke a degree for "good reasons" was not in question. What constitutes "good reasons" in a particular case will be down to the parties' lawyers. Tevildo (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

A worrying case I think is the one of the Russian spy Andrey Bezrukov who got a degree at Harvard in public administration under the name Donald H. Heathfield. It was stripped they said as he had lied by not giving his correct name in his application. I think this was grossly wrong. Dmcq (talk) 11:55, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Like espionage isn't? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In common law, a person can use any name he likes, so long as his intention is not fraudulent or criminal. Bezrukov was the unregistered agent of a foreign power. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

He paid his fees and caused no trouble to the university and attained the qualification without any cheating. I see no reson for the removal of the degree. Universities are not supposed to penalize people for political reasons. They're quite happy giving degree to murderers and rapists and quite rightly too I think. Dmcq (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

But he was admitted falsely. He was presumably admitted with a falsified transcript from an American high school. There is no way of knowing whether he would have been admitted with his own transcript from a Russian high school. Universities that give degrees to murderers and rapists have admitted them under their true names with knowledge of who they are. Also, this case is not relevant to details of the right of the university to revoke the degree, because the revocation was never challenged in court and cannot be challenged in court, because the actual person cannot (for valid reasons) use American (federal or Massachusetts) courts, having been properly expelled from the United States. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That's a technicality. Sure, I suppose it's possible he wouldn't have been admitted, but apparently he was able to do the work. I'm not a big fan of Russian spies, but neither am I a fan of digging up irregularities from years ago to deny a credential the man earned. --Trovatore (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Seconded indeed! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

You should all email each other congratulations on your liberal and understanding attitude toward spies, but the Foreign Agents Registration Act says differently, and these were not refugees, but knowing sleeper agents giving false countries of origin and travelling under false passports. I am sure all sorts of statutes apply beyond that one. Harvard has a reputation to uphold and an interest in a friendly relationship with the federal government. Either a degree from Harvard has a reputation or it doesn't. One can't say the degree has a significant value and then argue (at least not without contradiction) that a fraudulently procured degree from Harvard is consistent with that same position of honor. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where the Foreign Agents Registration Act mentions academic degrees. A degree has a reputation because it attests the ability and knowledge of the recipient, not his or her place or state of birth, nor his or her particular career details. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The man was a knowing and willful felon intentionally using the identity he built up as part of that fraud, making his fraudulently obtained degree part of the crime itself. No argument was made that that single act required the University to rescind his degree. The University's own academic integrity required that it rescind his degree. Once again, it's not that he simply fulfilled the requirements of a degree, it's that Harvard is certifying that he earned it under their aegis in good faith.

If it's simply a matter of saying that he took certain courses, a degree in Mixology from Molotov University, Stalingrad would be just as good, no? But obviously it's not just as good, because Harvard's good name isn't behind it. A Harvard degree can't be both so valuable it is unfair to take it away from him, but so meaningless that his having fraudulently obtained it is of no consequence.

There's also the question of the honor system, how does Harvard know that a spy who would use a fake passport wouldn't also have KGB agents write his papers for him, and so forth. There's no right to a Harvard degree outside the terms under which Harvard grants such a degree. I am quite sure my point was clear the first time I made it. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If Molotov University, Stalingrad offers the same courses, with the same professors, the same students and the the same exams, then yes, the degree would be just as good. That's what a degree signifies: that you took and passed certain courses in a certain setting. It's not something like "a certificate to be a good person", or whatever you seem to think. Of course Math 101 in Boondoggle Community College is not the same as Math 101 at Harvard, and Michael Sandel's Justice is only available at Harvard. Your point about the honor system might be more convincing, but then it would equally apply to any student who ever speeded, got a drink under the age of 21, or even cheated on their boyfriend. It's not as if writing papers for others is exactly an unknown problem, or restricted to foreign spies. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:19, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

If credentials were issued in accordance with federal regulations, an entire chapter would exist specifying duration: an expiration date would be clearly specified or non-expiration would be clearly stated; a renewal procedure would be documented; an administrative rule for credential revocation would be spelled out. However, most degree-granting institutions are less verbose than the Government, so corner cases are determined on an ad-hoc basis. This absence of over-specification is almost the defining characteristic of academic freedom: a university is free to decide how it wishes to handle exceptions. If a major institution wishes to admit foreign spies, and grant degrees to them, they may do so (as long as the critical decision-makers like the provost are happy with that policy). One would have a very hard time proving that there is any actual American law that prohibits the granting of a university degree to a "spy" in broad terms, provided that no other laws or regulations are violated. Along the same line of reasoning: if a major institution wished to revoke a university degree, they could be free to do so - provided that no other laws or regulations are violated. University degree-granting is not subject to strict regulatory scrutinization. Nimur (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

According to the earlier commentary only the admission was fraudulent, not the main and important parts of obtaining the degree. You could claim that because without admission you can't obtain a degree that makes it okay, but that seems a stretch, particularly since I suspect the number of students who have embellishements on their admission records is actually quite high. (This is not to defend such practices nor to deny the negative effect on those who are totally honest, but I don't think many would agree revoking a degree because someone said they were the president of the wikipedia society for 3 years when they were the vice-resident for 1.5 years is the way to go.)

Also even if you make allowances for refugees providing false information (although it's not clear to me whether you are or are simply concerned with legal residence), in some countries like the US, many migrants would probably not be eligible for political asylum and are not legally in their country of residence at the time of admission.

Consider also cases like Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the controversy over whether she was truthful in her asylum application and whether she would have be eligible for asylum had she been truthful. In fact there are some key details (like the claim of a forced marriage) that don't seem to have been established either way and would probably be difficult to do so now.

Yet there seems to be enough doubt along with other irregularities that it's easy to imagine in a different case (say someone know for their pro Islamic extremist rheoteric) that person would have found it far more difficult to keep their citizenship. (Although per our article, the probably could have kept their residency due to the time passed regardless of circumstances.)

Note that although in her case even if she wasn't eligible at the time of admission, she was probably eligible by the time the controversy came up, that wouldn't seem to affect any degrees awarded during the period of ineligibility under an extremist view that anyone who lied in the admission application or wasn't legally allowed to reside for study at the time they were doing so, should lose their degree.

In fact in a similar fashion, consider that for non signatories of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees particularly, the requirements for someone to be considered a refugee vary considerably. And in developing countries it isn't uncommon a bribe in the right proper may give you papers including those relating to residence or citizenship you may not be eligible for and may be far more effective than trying for political asylum. And what happens if someone probably was eligible for asylum even under restrictive laws, but did pay a bribe? These papers will not only help a person in that country but will probably help them if they later want to do something like study at Harvard.

Nil Einne (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The issue is that the degree furthers the identity deception. The university cannot be part of that deception and shouldn't be a verifiable CV credential. Like the honor code, there are reasons to expel students for being untruthful, and it seems logical that an event that would lead to expulsion if discovered at the time would also lead to revocation. Dishonesty is an integrity violation and frowned on more than whether it's a crime. To wit: plagiarism is considered a major academic violation but it is not criminal, just dishonest. --DHeyward (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is illogical. Either it's known that the spy is a spy, in which case there is no identity deception anymore, or it is not, in which case there is no reason for revoking the degree. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:28, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes honorary degrees get revoked, because the recipient turns out to be an asshole. See [1] Robert Mugabe in 2008, by Edinburgh University. 92.28.229.197 (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Honorary degrees are a different matter, I see no problem with them taking away an honor they award if the person brings dishonor. Dmcq (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

TBH, it would probably be a good thing if they could in certain cases - 'conduct unbecoming of a scientist', or something. I suppose that an educated person with the certificates to prove it can appear far more credible when endorsing quackery, pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, etc., even if it's outside of their area of study. Ditto with MDs - I suppose that's even worse when you have a DOCTOR peddling useless-at-best, dangerous-at-worst woo to sick people. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 20:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In Germany, a Doktor can be withdrawn in cases where the recipient is acting in a manner "unworthy of the title". That barrier is very high, but repeated scientific fraud is a possible reason. And of course, like many things in Germany, this possibility was misused in the Nazi millennium. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

• This question has nothing to do with Science and really ought to have been moved to Humanities, but I guess it seems a bit pointless now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

As has been mentioned, a distinction should be made between a honorary degree and an academic degree. Honorary degrees can generally be revoked relatively easily. In the case of academic degrees, there is the example of Saif al-Islam Gaddafi's Ph.D. Although there was great controversy about the London School of Economics Gaddafi links, from what I can tell things are as you would expect, the only consideration when it came to revoking the degree was those concerning academic matters particularly whether it was plagiarised (also possibly whether he received undue assistance). It wasn't revoked although I'm not sure the Ph.D is going to me much benefit in the foreseeable future anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The answer to the OP's question, "Can they do it?" obviously is "Yes." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

And on the original question about creationism etc, I'm afraid that there have been people who have gone to university to study geology just so they can come out as being geologists and being in support of flood geology. Much as I dislike the stupid business I would very much oppose any attempt to remove their degrees and I do not believe anyone has ever had a degree removed on that sort of basis. Dmcq (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Emergency rooms

Where are trauma patients generally moved to from the emergency room once they have been given the necessary emergency treatment? Do they go to a normal ward relevant to the injuries they have? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.243.44 (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In the UK that will depend on the injuries sustained and the condition of the patient. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:49, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that they don't need to be taken to an intensive care or high dependency unit where would they go. I'm assuming people don't stay in emergency departments for longer than 24 hours. For example, if they had head injuries which were determined not to be life threatening, maybe a cracked skull and they're conscious and don't require high dependency, where would they go? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.243.44 (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

That's actually not a good example, because head trauma is particularly likely to require careful monitoring in an intensive care unit, even if the patient is conscious. But for example after a simple fracture of the leg that has been set and placed in a cast, or a laceration that has been stitched, a patient might well be put in an ordinary room or even released. Looie496 (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

But which department would treat the patient if put in an ordinary room? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.243.44 (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In most hospitals ordinary rooms are not assigned to departments, unless there is a special situation such as a highly infectious disease. A patient in an ordinary room will mostly be cared for by nursing staff, with a resident physician coming by on "rounds" once a day. If any special procedures are needed, a specialist will come to the room to perform them -- or if necessary, the patient will be transported to the place where the procedure is done and then transported back to the room. Looie496 (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

But what kind of specialist would treat the patient? So for fractured legs etc would it be orthopaedic? And maybe maxillofacial for facial injuries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.10.243.44 (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh I see, you're just trolling. Oh well. Looie496 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

What!?!? I'm not trolling, you're being incredibly rude, I've been perfectly civil and am just asking questions, you're obviously just covering up the fact that you don't know the answer by saying that I'm trolling. 94.10.243.44 (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

In the UK, there is often an "observation ward" attached to the emergency room (which is known as the "Accident and Emergency Department" or "A&E" here) where casualties are sent for assessment before either being discharged or transferred to a specialist or general ward - see Role of the short stay observation ward in accident and emergency departments in the United Kingdom. I couldn't find any equivalent in the US but the terms used are quite different. Alansplodge (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're not trolling, why are you asking questions you already know the answer for or not making clear your actual questions until people have replied lots of timess? Nil Einne (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)