The Stripper and the Bogus Online Degree
By Lisa Neal, Editor-In-Chief, eLearn Magazine

I don't understand why people buy degrees from so-called diploma mills-don't they know the degrees are bogus? And, given that they purchased it, aren't they aware of the potential consequences? In many recent cases, the fines resulting from actually using the "degree" to get a job far exceeded the purchase price.

I can admit that I surreptitiously read about alien abductions in the grocery check-out, but I never imagined that a story on e-learning could approach such scandalous heights. Recently, I spotted an article in The Boston Globe. A former stripper, known professionally as Princess Cheyenne, was found guilty of 19 of 25 counts "of fraud and larceny for posing as a licensed psychologist for seven years and treating clients." Lucy Wightman's past as a stripper was not the issue here-although it ultimately impacted her educational career-nor was Wightman's former engagement to the singer-turned-Muslim-convert Yusuf Islam (neé Cat Stevens), though it was certainly a more interesting read at the check-out than Tom Cruise's marriage. The issue here was the purchase of a bogus online doctorate and the use of it as a legitimate degree.

Wightman earned a master's in counseling psychology from Lesley University. After five years of coursework, she left a doctoral program at the Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology without earning her Ph.D. (Not so odd, I know many people who are ABD-All But Dissertation, a nice way of saying that they went to graduate school but left empty-handed.) The reason for her departure: A dean "confronted her about her storied career as a stripper in Boston's Combat Zone in the 1970s and '80s". But as she later told the jury, Wightman felt that she had earned her doctorate and paid about $1,300 for what she thought was a bona fide degree from Dominica-based Concordia College & University.

According to the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office, "state law requires that psychologists possess a doctoral degree in psychology from a doctoral program recognized by the state and that they be licensed with the state Division of Professional Licensure." Lucy Wightman reportedly set up a practice claiming she had a doctorate, and never applied for or received a license to practice as a psychologist.

Oddly enough, her master's degree apparently would have allowed Wightman to practice as a psychotherapist. Why didn't she choose to do that instead, or, since Concordia is not recognized in Massachusetts, get a degree from a different school? The questions accumulate-as they do in so many other high-profile cases involving bogus degrees. Ralph Timperi, head of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health's infectious disease lab and an adjunct lecturer at the Harvard School of Public Health, found himself in hot water after purchasing a Ph.D. from "Trinity Southern University" of Buenos Aires, Argentina, for $499. And John McGuire, the police chief of Fostoria, Ohio, recently suffered his own credentials-related scandal after acquiring a Concordia degree.

Concordia's website says that it "removes the obstacles that cause adults to abandon hopes of acquiring their degree." An inscription at the entrance to hell, as described by Dante in The Divine Comedy, may provide a better motto for the school: Abandon hope, all ye who enter here.

Lisa Neal is Editor-in-Chief of eLearn Magazine and an e-learning consultant.

From: marieclaire (email) lmhc Ethics 101: Responsibility of Clinical Supervisors Date: 03/21/2009 07:34:26 Hard to believe her clinical supervisors were unaware of the fact that she was practicing without a license. As far as I know, professional ethics holds supervisors responsible for the well-being of the supervisees'' clients. Did this not come up during the trial? MC   From: IV (email) Friend Let''s simplify this Date: 03/12/2008 03:19:11 Forget all the support for Ms. Wightman. She did not meet the requirements set forth by the commonwealth. End of story. If you call yourself a psychologist, you must meet the minimum legal requirements in doing so. She failed to do that. The stripper part did not play any role in her conviction, it only titillated the public''s perverse interest in sex scandals (see Elliot Spitzer). Otherwise, have no sympathy for this woman''s conviction. I should add that the loss of her daughter in a car crash was an unrelated and tragic incident that happened to occur in the interim between her indictment and her trial. For this, it is OK to have much sympathy; but when you break the law and practice healing arts without a license, you should expect this kind of public reaction and reprimand.   From: George (email) none use your intelligence Date: 05/23/2007 12:19:19 The possibilities are endless. Fact is - Ms. WIghtman testified on her own behalf, under oath. She was the only witness for her defense to speak of. The prosecution did not allow for much else. Not once was she tripped up on cross - she was telling the truth which was obvious to us and to the jury. This is why she was found not guilty on the weightiest charges. I should re-write this as she was NOT GUILTY on the WEIGHTIEST CHARGES. The coloring from her past colors how we fill in the gaps to the story. Her testimony was not found to be in contempt. You must let it stand on its own. Ms. Wightman stated she was working in a small private practice under the supervision of several licensed individuals to include Robert Fox LICSW and Karen Beason Patrick, a licensed psychologist with whom she formed a business, who was also a graduate of MSPP. Ms. Wightman further states that she was trying to finish her dissertation, had collected ALL of the data and had completed ALL of her coursework (yes it was admitted into evidence), and was railroaded, caught off guard, when she was confronted with being in private practice and as having been a stripper - the conclusion was made that she was therefore being sexually inappropriate with patients! She had to sit in a room with seven "psychologists" or people in the "helping profession" who were nothing short of humiliating. She was not the only person in the school to have a private practice. In fact, she mentioned a Danielle Detorra from Stow, Massachusetts, who was also being supervised by Karen Patrick, and who was STILL working as a stripper in Providence. Wightman had allegedly guided her so she could pay her tuition bills. She was not harassed. In listening to Norbett Mintz, Wightman''s advisor, on the stand, he contradicted himself blatantly! Maybe if Wightman had a more experienced attorney the Commonwealth''s witnesses could have been shown more obviously to not be telling the truth. The story is far from over, and is less about one woman than it is about human behavior, scapegoating and cultural norms and assumptions, not to mention the politcal process.   From: Lesa Huber (email) Indiana University We''ll have to check your credentials Date: 05/22/2007 04:34:27 That was hilarious, Lisa. Do you think these people have a "they''ll never check my degree out" attitude? I just had to go through a re-application for my own job this spring. (Good news, I''m still employed) But I was surprised to see a line on the application stating that my credentials would be checked out. I had never seen that before. It''s been over 10 years since I technically applied for a job, so perhaps this group was similarly unaware that credential checking is a new reality. Or maybe they really are just that stupid. Very enjoyable column! Lesa

Comments Leave this field empty Post a Comment: Comment Title (Required) Name (Required) E-Mail (Required) Affiliation (Required) Comment (Required - HTML syntax is not allowed and will be removed)