4 ms·

I think in such situations it can be withheld but not withdrawn, it's pretty common for universities to hold back credentials until debts are paid. But once it'

I think in such situations it can be withheld but not withdrawn, it's pretty common for universities to hold back credentials until debts are paid. But once it's been given I think the only scenario which it can be withdrawn is if it was given under fraudulent circumstances. Like a newspaper retraction, it can only be retracted if the original statement was found to be false. The perpetrator should be sued for damages which is the normal thing to happen. Withdrawing properly received credentials opens the door to yet another extra-judicial punishment and we already have too many of those. (EDIT) I've since googled around a bit and am surprised that there does seem to be a degree of discretion available to the university to revoke degrees that I was unaware of. I had always considered degrees to be like an affidavit, a statement of a fact as the institution understands it. There are plenty of horrible people who have done heinous things and I've never heard of their degrees being taken away. Perhaps one difference here is that the behavior under question was during their undergrad.

bawolff 2y ago
I actually tend to agree with this (once its given i think morally its too late to take it away, except maybe if they cheated). I still think its a totally different situation than the turkey one though.
- matthewdgreen 2y ago
  They are both situations in which a University was politically pressured by the government to revoke degrees for political purposes. The difference is just the specific goals of the government doing the pressuring. You don’t think Columbia just coincidentally decided to take this action months after the fact, after having its funding pulled by the US administration, do you?
  - dmix 2y ago
    I don't agree with politically pressuring organizations but it could just as easily be politically motivated to not enforce established rules on criminal behaviour.
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      This is honestly something very strange to me, because a bunch of academics are the furthest thing on Earth from the police. Why can't vandals have a normal day in court and go to regular jail?
  - Aurornis 2y ago
    I don’t think you understand how long it takes for universities to decide how to handle punishment situations. This one has a significant complication of parallel legal action. They seized and vandalized a building. They’ve been reviewing evidence and building cases for a long time. These things take time.
    - matthewdgreen 2y ago
      If you’re operating an honest judicial board and you’re receiving high profile threats from the US government backed by huge funding cuts to the University, you have a choice. (1) Comply or simply appear to comply, by rendering a favorable ruling immediately, (2) Establish that your ruling is not the result of government pressure. You’d do the latter by (for example) showing your work and proving that the results were already determined before the pressure campaign began; or you’d change the timing so that it doesn’t look like cause and effect; you could even suspend your ruling on the grounds that maintaining the appearance of the University and Board’s independence is a higher priority than punishing a few protestors. Columbia did none of the things in category (2). I know it’s 2025 and we have to pretend that this apparently corrupt thing is innocent, even while the folks involved make no effort to defend it. But it isn’t innocent, and everyone involved knows what’s going on.
      - bawolff 2y ago
        Did the trump admin reverse course? There is no point in giving into threats if the other party is still going to follow through regardless. I think the best argument against this being due to political pressure from trump is it doesn't seem effective in getting rid of that pressure. If trump is the thing they care about here, why would they bother if trump is going to do trump things regardless.
        matthewdgreen 2y ago
        I don't know what "reverse course" means here. This is extortion, not a simple transaction like purchasing a sandwich in a deli. The Trump administration is withholding funding and simultaneously making a series of explicit (and completely inappropriate) demands that it wishes Columbia to comply with. I assume what we're watching is a kind of "negotiation" period in which Columbia either does or does not do various things, and then over time the Trump administration decides whether to relent or punish them further. There is no real pressure on the administration to just stop. One of the explicit demands the administration made was for Columbia to disband the University Judicial Board (the exact group that handed down these decisions) presumably because they felt that it would not sufficiently punish the protesters. Coincidentally, around the same time this happened, the board "independently" decided to punish the protesters quite severely.
rapind 2y ago
> Withdrawing properly received credentials opens the door to yet another extra-judicial punishment and we already have too many of those. I don’t understand why this is even an option? So the degree is never truly owned by the recipient then if it can be withdrawn/ revoked? Just another reason not to invest time and money into it.
- Aurornis 2y ago
  > Just another reason not to invest time and money into it. No it’s not. Not unless you plan on taking over campus buildings and vandalizing them, I guess. The degree isn’t some unrevocable item that you own. It’s an endorsement from the university. There are contractual agreements involved and it doesn’t take much imagination to think of how taking over a campus building and vandalizing it (while encouraging current students to join you) is grounds for them to cancel the degree.
  - plorg 2y ago
    Eh, I attended a conservative Christian college and there was a pretty strict religious code of conduct students were required to abide by. I would find it pretty disturbing for the school to retroactively rescind my engineering degree due to my having drunk underage or being an atheist. You can come up with whatever justification you want, but this action is unprecedented and clearly a politically motivated punishment.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      My high school wouldn't let you graduate if you had unpaid library fines, i can't imagine what they would do if you caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage. I agree rescinding post-granting degree is weird but we are still talking about behaviour that happened while they were students and that happened relatively recently (such that disciplinary procedures could have realistically started while they were still students). It is unusual, but the situation is unusual. I think calling it unprecedented is a bit much. Its plausible it could be politically motivated, but it seems equally plausible that the school is pissed that they now have to find thousands in the budget to repair the damage done. Causing tens of thousands of dollars in damages is a plausible reason for the school to be mad.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> in such situations it can be withheld but not withdrawn, it's pretty common for universities to hold back credentials until debts are paid The article says Columbia “temporarily revoked the diplomas of some students.” I imagine this is what’s going on.
Apofis 2y ago
Well they can't force you to regurgitate the knowledge you got there or remove it from your resume, so big deal.
- atkailash 2y ago
  [dead]

bawolff 2y ago

I actually tend to agree with this (once its given i think morally its too late to take it away, except maybe if they cheated). I still think its a totally different situation than the turkey one though.

matthewdgreen 2y ago
They are both situations in which a University was politically pressured by the government to revoke degrees for political purposes. The difference is just the specific goals of the government doing the pressuring. You don’t think Columbia just coincidentally decided to take this action months after the fact, after having its funding pulled by the US administration, do you?
- dmix 2y ago
  I don't agree with politically pressuring organizations but it could just as easily be politically motivated to not enforce established rules on criminal behaviour.
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    This is honestly something very strange to me, because a bunch of academics are the furthest thing on Earth from the police. Why can't vandals have a normal day in court and go to regular jail?
- Aurornis 2y ago
  I don’t think you understand how long it takes for universities to decide how to handle punishment situations. This one has a significant complication of parallel legal action. They seized and vandalized a building. They’ve been reviewing evidence and building cases for a long time. These things take time.
  - matthewdgreen 2y ago
    If you’re operating an honest judicial board and you’re receiving high profile threats from the US government backed by huge funding cuts to the University, you have a choice. (1) Comply or simply appear to comply, by rendering a favorable ruling immediately, (2) Establish that your ruling is not the result of government pressure. You’d do the latter by (for example) showing your work and proving that the results were already determined before the pressure campaign began; or you’d change the timing so that it doesn’t look like cause and effect; you could even suspend your ruling on the grounds that maintaining the appearance of the University and Board’s independence is a higher priority than punishing a few protestors. Columbia did none of the things in category (2). I know it’s 2025 and we have to pretend that this apparently corrupt thing is innocent, even while the folks involved make no effort to defend it. But it isn’t innocent, and everyone involved knows what’s going on.
    - bawolff 2y ago
      Did the trump admin reverse course? There is no point in giving into threats if the other party is still going to follow through regardless. I think the best argument against this being due to political pressure from trump is it doesn't seem effective in getting rid of that pressure. If trump is the thing they care about here, why would they bother if trump is going to do trump things regardless.
      - matthewdgreen 2y ago
        I don't know what "reverse course" means here. This is extortion, not a simple transaction like purchasing a sandwich in a deli. The Trump administration is withholding funding and simultaneously making a series of explicit (and completely inappropriate) demands that it wishes Columbia to comply with. I assume what we're watching is a kind of "negotiation" period in which Columbia either does or does not do various things, and then over time the Trump administration decides whether to relent or punish them further. There is no real pressure on the administration to just stop. One of the explicit demands the administration made was for Columbia to disband the University Judicial Board (the exact group that handed down these decisions) presumably because they felt that it would not sufficiently punish the protesters. Coincidentally, around the same time this happened, the board "independently" decided to punish the protesters quite severely.

rapind 2y ago

> Withdrawing properly received credentials opens the door to yet another extra-judicial punishment and we already have too many of those. I don’t understand why this is even an option? So the degree is never truly owned by the recipient then if it can be withdrawn/ revoked? Just another reason not to invest time and money into it.

Aurornis 2y ago
> Just another reason not to invest time and money into it. No it’s not. Not unless you plan on taking over campus buildings and vandalizing them, I guess. The degree isn’t some unrevocable item that you own. It’s an endorsement from the university. There are contractual agreements involved and it doesn’t take much imagination to think of how taking over a campus building and vandalizing it (while encouraging current students to join you) is grounds for them to cancel the degree.
- plorg 2y ago
  Eh, I attended a conservative Christian college and there was a pretty strict religious code of conduct students were required to abide by. I would find it pretty disturbing for the school to retroactively rescind my engineering degree due to my having drunk underage or being an atheist. You can come up with whatever justification you want, but this action is unprecedented and clearly a politically motivated punishment.
  - bawolff 2y ago
    My high school wouldn't let you graduate if you had unpaid library fines, i can't imagine what they would do if you caused tens of thousands of dollars in damage. I agree rescinding post-granting degree is weird but we are still talking about behaviour that happened while they were students and that happened relatively recently (such that disciplinary procedures could have realistically started while they were still students). It is unusual, but the situation is unusual. I think calling it unprecedented is a bit much. Its plausible it could be politically motivated, but it seems equally plausible that the school is pissed that they now have to find thousands in the budget to repair the damage done. Causing tens of thousands of dollars in damages is a plausible reason for the school to be mad.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> in such situations it can be withheld but not withdrawn, it's pretty common for universities to hold back credentials until debts are paid The article says Columbia “temporarily revoked the diplomas of some students.” I imagine this is what’s going on.

Apofis 2y ago

Well they can't force you to regurgitate the knowledge you got there or remove it from your resume, so big deal.

atkailash 2y ago
[dead]