As many of you know, My husband Jun Yu is fighting against injustice in higher education. ISU ruined his 5 yrs of education & future, and denied him the PhD he rightfully earned. Learn more and support his cause at Generosity.com. #JusticeForJun
As I’ve written before, one of the strongest things about Jun Yu’s case against Idaho State University is the experts he has behind him. All of his experts have concluded ISU’s treatment towards Jun was a substantial departure from accepted academic norms (see pages 25, 32 and 36 in Docket 22-1).
That’s significant, because universities cannot substantially deviate from accepted academic norms in how they treat students. (See Regents of University of Michigan v. Ewing, 106 S.Ct. 507, 513, 474 U.S. 214, 224-25 (U.S.Mich.,1985). See also Emerson v. North Idaho College, 2006 WL 3253585, at *8 (D.Idaho, 2006).)
But these reports are not just a legal strength in Jun Yu’s case. They can also make for fascinating reading and, at the same time, reveal just how much Idaho State University screwed up my husband’s education and totally failed in their duties as educators.
Here are my top five favorite quotes (including one where an expert does indeed call ISU “reprehensible”). I’ve linked the quotes back to the actual pages in the expert report where they come from — so if you like them, you can continue reading and get the full picture:
This quote comes from the ethics in psychology expert in Jun’s case, regarding how ISU arbitrarily decided to demote Jun’s degree:
In awarding Mr. Yu a second master’s degree citing the equivalence of his doctoral dissertation to a master’s thesis at ISU the faculty again demonstrates a kind of post-hoc mental gymnastic that runs contrary to the G & P [APA Accreditation] specifications. Doctoral dissertations are by definition intended to differ in breadth, depth, quality, and demonstrated independence of the student from master’s theses.
P.S.: Note also the expert’s use of the word “again” in the sentence, meaning this is NOT the first time they’ve engaged in post-hoc mental gymnastics regarding Jun, as you can see in the following example:
Psychology is supposed to be an evidence-based practice, even when it comes to making determinations about students. Which is why the ethics in psychology expert in Jun’s case used the above language in response to ISU’s reason for denying Jun an opportunity to complete his internship (his last requirement) in China. Here it is in context:
No timely reasons were given as to why the previously offered option of finding a comparable internship training site in China was no longer available as an alternative choice to Mr. Yu. However, in the Departmental Level Rejection of his Appeal dated May 17, 2013 the Department Chair Dr. Lynch wrote, “The Graduate Faculty is convinced that a fourth “chance” (i.e., an Internship in China) is unwarranted and might put Chinese patients at risk of harm.” [Opinion: No evidence supports such a strained post-hoc conclusion. Nothing in the record shows that Mr. Yu ever harmed a patient in the United States or in China. In fact, his doctoral research demonstrated that his clinical efforts benefitted the clients he served in China.]
In professional psychology programs, it matters if you’ve successfully defended your dissertation. Programs do not have the right to arbitrarily demote your degree, which is why our cultural competency in psychology expert wrote the following:
In the May 3, 2013 dismissal letter, it was stated, “We recommend that Idaho State University award you the Master of Science degree in Psychology, to be conferred in August, 2013”, despite the fact that Mr. Yu had successfully defended his dissertation. [Opinion: The university has the obligation and responsibility to award Mr. Yu a Ph.D. in general psychology at a minimum. Mr. Yu successfully completed all doctoral level program requirements of the Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology, including successful defense of a doctoral dissertation, with the sole exception of successful completion of internship.]
I love this quote from the cultural competency in psychology expert because the language truly conveys the outrageousness of dismissing my husband. Here’s the quote in context:
It is my opinion that the dismissal of Mr. Yu from ISU’s Clinical Psychology Ph.D. Program was excessive (especially when considering that an appropriate formal remediation had not been attempted), unjustified, and objectively unreasonable. In my opinion, the actions of the faculty at ISU in dismissing Mr. Yu as they did, was a substantial departure from accepted academic norms.
Yes, ISU is so bad that our ethics in psychology expert actually used the word “reprehensible” to describe how they arbitrarily demoted Jun’s degree. Here’s the full quote in context:
By allowing Mr. Yu to propose, complete, and defend a doctoral dissertation the faculty recognized and acknowledged attainment of doctoral-level scholarship. By later claiming equivalence to a master’s degree in the course of dismissing him, the faculty has attempted to somehow reverse and diminish the quality of his work in a totally inappropriate and reprehensible manner. They also imply that the doctoral standards applied to him were not at a level that the APA Commission on Accreditation expects of doctoral dissertations.
What’s your favorite quote?
My husband Jun Yu is fighting against injustice in higher education. ISU ruined his 5 yrs of education & future, and denied him the PhD he rightfully earned. Learn more and support his cause at Generosity.com. #JusticeForJun