Expert Calls ISU “Reprehensible” + 4 More Powerful Expert Quotes Supporting Jun Yu’s Case

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
—–

屏幕快照 2016-06-01 下午3.44.05As 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:

#5: “…the faculty again demonstrates a kind of post-hoc mental gymnastic…”

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:

#4: “No evidence supports such a strained post-hoc conclusion.”

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.]

#3: “The university has the obligation and responsibility to award Mr. Yu a Ph.D. in general psychology at a minimum.

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.]

#2: “…the dismissal of Mr. Yu…was excessive…unjustified, and objectively unreasonable.”

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.

#1: “…the faculty has attempted to somehow reverse and diminish the quality of his work in a totally inappropriate and reprehensible manner.”

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

Did you enjoy this article?
Sign up now and receive an email whenever I publish new blog posts. We respect your privacy. You can unsubscribe at any time.
I agree to have my personal information transfered to MailChimp ( more information )

You might also like:

6 thoughts on “Expert Calls ISU “Reprehensible” + 4 More Powerful Expert Quotes Supporting Jun Yu’s Case

  • June 1, 2016 at 9:53 pm
    Permalink

    Prayers are heard. God never sleeping. God bless you and Jun.

    Reply
    • June 2, 2016 at 11:52 am
      Permalink

      Nicki, ISU never mentioned what Jun’s previous three chances were, nor that he had apparently used them up.

      Reply
  • June 2, 2016 at 7:35 pm
    Permalink

    Tough to complain about the whites in the US or Idaho when nearly the same nonsense happens in China…

    http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/986424.shtml

    And recently they have adopted the American way of life by attacking Asian-White couples either physically or verbally.

    Reply
    • June 2, 2016 at 11:24 pm
      Permalink

      Mark, I understand China has its own issues.

      My husband’s case is not an issue of complaining about whites in the US or Idaho. This is an issue of people who violated standards and the laws, and regardless of what their background is, they should be held accountable for their wrongdoing. Period.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.