O’Donnell’s Dubious Academic History
Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell has a history of embellishing her educational history.
When Christine O’Donnell first became a prominent candidate in Delaware, one tidbit of information that emerged about her was that she had fudged her education record. Specifically, she claimed to have graduated from Fairleigh Dickinson University in 1993. However, it ended up she was one course short and actually finished her degree just this year (17 years later, O’Donnell earns degree). There was also some question over whether she claimed to be pursuing a masters degree at Princeton, when in fact she had only audited an undergraduate course.*
Now, being one elective short of a degree is different than simply making up a bio line. Still, before one can claim to be a college graduate one has to complete all the degree requirements. Therefore, to present oneself as having a degree that one did not actually earn is problematic—especially since it appears likely that she told employers that she was a college graduate.*
However, the game-playing with her education history is not limited to the above. Earlier in the week, several reporters looked at O’Donnell’s LinkedIn profile (which is now gone) and found the following (screen cap courtesy of Patterico):
Ends up that O’Donnell took a class from something called The Phoenix Institute which happened to rent space at Oxford (source). It also ends up that she was once a fellow at the Claremont Institute, which is in Claremont, California, but that has no affiliation with the Claremont Graduate University or any of the other Claremont Colleges. As such, the education entries that O’Donnell had on her LinkedIn profile were utterly fraudulent.
I would note, too, that when one scrolled down, the years for her FDU degree were listed at 1989-1993, when in fact (as noted above) she didn’t complete said degree until 2010 (I meant to screencap all of this yesterday, and indeed to write this post, but didn’t have time).
As has been noted on this blog on several occasions, a college education and the institution from which said education was received, is a very important signaling device in our economy and society. As such, presenting oneself as having degrees one does not have or pretending to have studied at places where one did not study (especially prominent places in the upper echelons of elite higher education) is highly problematic. It amounts to brazen misrepresentation and calls one’s character rather seriously into question.
On the one hand, because I work in higher education perhaps I am more sensitive to such fraud given that not only do I see students working hard on a daily basis (and year after year) to legitimately earn their degrees, but also exist in a culture where status is very much determined by one’s degrees and the schools one attended. On the other, the fact of the matter is that in all professional fields, degrees matter. There is no doubt that in business the schools one attended, the degrees one received, and the length of time it took to accomplish those goals matter quite a bit.
Such moves also call into question the intelligence of the person making such claims: it isn’t as if in the electronic age such claims aren’t easy to check—especially when one lies on a social media site, and not just in a stack of papers only a handful of people will see. Further, there are plenty of examples of people getting burned for such behavior. The mind immediately turns to several high profile coaches who found themselves out of jobs because of resume enhancement. For example, George O’Leary lost his dream job at Notre Dame back in 2001 over such falsehoods: O’Leary out at Notre Dame after one week.
Ben Domench provides a rather anemic defense of O’Donnell at RedState: Let’s Attack Christine O’Donnell’s LinkedIn Page! I find Domench’s defense especially problematic, given his past problems with the accurate handling of information (to put it politely).***
Meanwhile, O’Donnell claims that she did not set up the LinkedIN profile: Christine O’Donnell Says She ‘Never’ Posted LinkedIn Profile That Has Wrong Education Info. However, it seems rather odd that someone went out of their way to put such a profile up (as O’Donnell claims not only not to have put it up herself, but also that she did not authorize anyone to put it up). Still, it is possible. Greg Sargent has more on this here: LinkedIn responds to O’Donnell. O’Donnell’s credibility here is strained because of her prior record of embellishing her educational history.
*Apparently in her lawsuit against ISI she claimed that the company prevented her from pursuing a master’s degree at Princeton. See the Weekly Standard: Citing “Mental Anguish,” Christine O’Donnell Sought $6.9 Million in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Conservative Group. That claim, which clearly was a radical exaggeration, is made worse by the fact that at the time it was made, O’Donnell did not have a bachelor’s degree—something masters programs like one to have.
**I base this surmise on the fact that she made public claims that she was a graduate of FDU, including during previous campaigns. If she made such claims to the public, it seems reasonable to assume that she presented herself as having a degree to employers as well. Further, one of the purposes of LinkIn is to serve as an online resume that potential employers can review. Setting her FDU dates as 1989-1993 suggests rather strongly that she earned her degree in 1993.
***Would would like to think that losing a job over plagiarism would lead one to be a bit more conscious of the significance of being as accurate as possible with written information in particular. However, it would appear that partisanship trumps that factor here.
How quickly do we devolve into: Christine is ok because you don’t cover lying democrats too; some “lamestream” media comment (probably coupled with something about the education “elite”); and she’s innocent of lying- it’s a conpiracy?
Start the clock…
When you write “embellishing”, you mean as opposed to declaring it “Top Secret, Special Compartmentalized Information” (no open and transparency requirements need apply) and relegating it to the deepest vaults of our educational institutions?
Christine O’Donnell is a brave warrior fighting the pernicious plague of credentialism.
When are we going to see the release and intense scrutiny of Obama’s records and college papers?
Nobody’s asking for copies of O’Donnell’s papers. She’s claiming attendence at colleges that she didn’t actually attend. There is no dispute that Barack Obama attended the universities that he claims to have attended, and it’s well established, here and elsewhere, that the “papers” that the conspiracy theorists whisper about (such as a “Senior Thesis” from a school that doesn’t do Senior Theses) don’t actually exist.
This was the objection I was expected (a la what Brian noted above).
I am not asking for O’Donnell’s grades, I am noting a history of dishonesty about her academic credentials. If there is any evidence that Obama doesn’t have the degrees he claims to have or has ever represented himself as having studied somewhere he did not, then we would have an apples to apples situation.
I just wish that you guys would cover the lies Democrats tell, but you’re just like the lamestream media in going out of your way to protect those marxist-loving, intellectually feeble professors who still have a job only because of tenure.
There, Brian. That satisfy your itch?
The bachelor’s degree would seem the least ethically suspect, but in a way it is the most damning for her Senatorial run. The other two involve lying to enhance her chances, which some voters, but not all, would consider a negative. But the fact that it took seventeen years for her to follow through and get all her paperwork and coursework in order to get a degree she actually earned is pretty damning. It shows a profound lack of attention and seriousness.
@ Alex Knapp
“…and it’s well established”
Whatever the issue may be, and whatever facts may be available regarding that issue, the only thing that is “well established” is OTBs unwillingnes to do any real research on it. You are all constantly piggy-backing off of someone else’s blog or article. Any “established” facts derive their veracity from someone elses claims of truth, and have almost nothing to do with you doing any actual work to fact check or verify.
But the reader must understand…. you just “know” its true.
****Whatever the issue may be, and whatever facts may be available regarding that issue, the only thing that is “well established” is OTBs unwillingnes to do any real research on it. You are all constantly piggy-backing off of someone else’s blog or article. Any “established” facts derive their veracity from someone elses claims of truth, and have almost nothing to do with you doing any actual work to fact check or verify.
I just wish that you guys would cover the lies Democrats tell, but you’re just like the lamestream media in going out of your way to protect those marxist-loving, intellectually feeble professors who still have a job only because of tenure.****
So what you’re saying is that you can’t say for certain that something is the truth unless you have physically done the research yourself? So to believe that Barack Obama attended Columbia University, it’s not enough to believe the university–I have to go back in time and check?
If I accept that Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon, is NASA’s footage sufficient, or do I need to go to the Moon myself and check out the footprints?
If I believe that Jesus Christ was resurrected from the dead, is the Bible sufficient, or do I need to put my fingers in the nail marks on His wrists?
Oh she’s “one elective short” of something all right.
Any of you familiar with the concept of the “honor code” at the military academies?
You actually have a duty to not passively stand by while…
Well recommending that people vote for O’Donnell after you listen to the first three minutes and 16 seconds of that WGMD radio interview is probably a-
Basically she’s just one more election short of having more power and access to influence than Charlie Rangel.
I know, I know the True *Value* voter response goes something like
“But she’s our Charlie Rangel!”
Man that’s some rally cry.
Take a good listen to the first 3 minutes and 16 seconds of this-
WGMD Radio the candidate in her own words.
Good luck pulling out of that spiral.
Taylor, do you Knapp and Mataconis work directly for Coons or are you being paid by a third party? The intellectual dishonesty here is shocking.
What intellectual dishonesty? Are you claiming that O’Donnell did, in fact, earn her degree in 1993?
That satisfy your itch?
Not hers, yours. Your put off of Obama’s record is a clear indication of srong bias inspite of claims to the opposite. Did O’Donnell get the degree she claimed? Maybe to her way of thinking she earned it when she said. Al least it was not through affirmative action. I notice you did not address the Coons employment question. With opinions expressed here by you who dishonor the internet by blogging, there will be few visitors who are willing to express an opinion which would not just as easily be found at Moveon.org. I call this an echo chamber. You, Doug and Alex are progressive liberals and Joyner is a moderate progressive.
“What intellectual dishonesty? Are you claiming that O’Donnell did, in fact, earn her degree in 1993?”
Once again Zels mistakes partisan purity for “intellectual honesty.”
Hey dudes, looks like Hillary has the same sort of problem as Christine. Go over the Patterico for details. Awww, see what you went and done. You stirred up a hornets nest. Good going.
It’s amazing how far right wing partisans attempt to defend O’Donnell’s invention of her educational background. In most companies or organizations if you get caught making up your qualifications you get fired. Why? Because it’s FRAUD. And it’s potentially dangerous. Or would these folks who think it just fine for O’Donnell to invent be quite happy to be operated upon by a doctor who’d lied about his qualifications. And don’t say it’s a strawman because it’s happened.
So you defenders seem to be saying that you are not “the party of traditional, moral, values” (ie, not lying), but only “the party of if they other guy can do something remotely like it, so can we.”
Well gosh, that earns my vote!
Herb, please do not add to my posts. It makes you out to be the pevaricator we all know you to be. I never said anything about the year she claimed to graduate, just that she did graduate. I guess the difference is lost on an idiot.
John, I have an idea how O’Donnell will vote in the Senate as well as how Coons will vote. I prefer the way O’Donnell will vote. That is truely all that really matters. There is evidence the information Dougie used was falsified by those who wish certain outcomes. You want a socialist America vote Coons you want an America the way it was intended to be vote O’Donnell.
Oh gosh I’m scared now!
Well, I guess they can lie all they want then.
BTW, are we talking full on scary Soviet Socialist? Or just “scared me for a second” Danish Socialist?
Maybe to her way of thinking she earned it when she said.
Well, to my way of thinking I have a bachelor’s from MIT and a Ph.D. from Harvard. Those institutions may deny this, but I substitute their reality with my own. That’s how it works, right Zels?
Job search not going so well, eh Zels? Loony Toons ever call back?
“Herb, please do not add to my posts. It makes you out to be the pevaricator we all know you to be.”
I’m not sure what that is….but if you meant prevaricator, you might want to look in the dictionary, then in the mirror. See if you notice any difference.
On a more serious note: Why do you even read this blog? I know why I read it…to gauge what the smart guys on “the other side” are saying. You don’t seem to like the authors, think they’re all progressive stooges, and you’re not even receptive to what they’re writing most of the time. So what’s in it for you?
@ john personna
BTW, are we talking full on scary Soviet Socialist? Or just “scared me for a second” Danish Socialist?
How about we simply settle for, “America knows your guy is a socialist bum and that’s why you’re going to get your a$$ handed to you in November socialist?”
That definition is accurate enough for me…
I guess the Progs here are going to have to condemn the dishonesty of the Vice President and Secretary of State:
Regarding Joe Biden’s lying (according to the standard set by the Progs here on OTB) about his academic achievements:
Mr. Biden looked at his questioner and said: ”I think I have a much higher I.Q. than you do.”
He then went on to say that he ”went to law school on a full academic scholarship – the only one in my class to have a full academic scholarship,” Mr. Biden said. He also said that he ”ended up in the top half” of his class and won a prize in an international moot court competition. In college, Mr. Biden said in the appearance, he was ”the outstanding student in the political science department” and ”graduated with three degrees from college.” Comments on Assertions
In his statement today, Mr. Biden, who attended the Syracuse College of Law and graduated 76th in a class of 85, acknowledged: ”I did not graduate in the top half of my class at law school and my recollection of this was inacurate.”
As for receiving three degrees, Mr. Biden said: ”I graduated from the University of Delaware with a double major in history and political science. My reference to degrees at the Claremont event was intended to refer to these majors – I said ‘three’ and should have said ‘two.’ ” Mr. Biden received a single B.A. in history and political science.
”With regard to my being the outstanding student in the political science department,” the statement went on. ”My name was put up for that award by David Ingersoll, who is still at the University of Delaware.”
In the Sunday interview, Mr. Biden said of his claim that he went to school on full academic scholarship: ”My recollection is – and I’d have to confirm this – but I don’t recall paying any money to go to law school.” Newsweek said Mr. Biden had gone to Syracuse ”on half scholarship based on financial need.”
Regarding Hillary Clinton’s lying about her academic achievements:
Clinton claims to have gone to Harvard.
[ I ] have obtained the following statement from Harvard Law School spokesman T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII:
Harvard Law School has no student or education record for an individual named Hillary Clinton. Nor would we ever accept a Yalie.
So, tell me true now. Are all you Progs going to start pontificating about how these “misrepresentations” show that Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are liars? I won’t hold my breath…
You do know that T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII (the 7th!) is a creation of Iowahawk, right?
Idiot. (Doubly an idiot for following Zelsdorf lead on anything.)
Biden obviously exaggerated a number of details from his school years back in the 1980s, but at least he actually attended the schools he talked about, even if he wasn’t as stellar a student as he claimed.
The Clinton profile is obviously not one set up by the candidate, unless you think the Secretary of State is based in the “Greater Detroit Area.” And, as sam pointed out, Mr. Voorhees is not a real person, and Patterico did not contact Harvard.
But tell us Juneau, are Biden and Clinton liars? Should they be criticized for what you detailed above?
“Are all you Progs going to start pontificating about how these ‘misrepresentations’ show that Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton are liars?”
Not really, we’ll just laugh at you for getting punk’d…”Harvard Law School spokesman T. Coddington Van Voorhees VI” *chuckle*…your research skills are about as impressive as those of your idol, the former governor of Alaska…
@ An Interested Party
Not really, we’ll just laugh at you for getting punk’d…”Harvard Law School spokesman T. Coddington Van Voorhees VI”
Yes, I do know that this character is from Iowahawk – I read the blog quite a bit. I included this Hillary spoof intentionally as my own little social experiment. You have made my point – in several ways.
The Biden issue is legitimate, while as you have pointed out, the Hillary issue is not. I put both of them in the post to 1) to see if you were honest enough to address the fact that (according to your standard) Biden is a liar, and 2) see if you would use the inaccuracy of one to ignore the legitimacy of the other. And, in true Prog fashion, you shrug off Biden’s lack of integrity (again, according to your own standard) and focus on the fact that the Hillary info is false.
As far as them being criticized; criticism is not the issue – all of these types of situations deserve criticism. However, I hear no one claiming that this dishonesty makes Biden unfit to serve in Government. Why does an arguably lesser amount of “misleading” information make O’Donnell unfit? Honest answer… it doesn’t, in and of itself.
Unless you’re prepared to begin calling for the resignation of the Vice Presdident of the United States, you may want to stop using this as a yardstick for O’Donnell fitness to serve in public office. The alternative is to be a complete hypocrite.
Why does an arguably lesser amount of “misleading” information make O’Donnell unfit?
Arguably a lesser amount? She’s claimed to have gotten degrees from or attended universities she never attended. Biden lied about how good a student he was, but he actually went to those schools and graduated. Plus, O’Donnell’s lies on her resume are compounded by the fact that she’s obviously lying in response to the allegations (it’s not the crime, it’s the coverup). Biden owned up to it.
Add to that the fact that O’Donnell broke the law by using her campaign to cover her living expenses, has failed to file tax returns for her non-profit for years, and defaulted on her mortgage. If the good people of Delaware think this person is a responsible person who they want as their Senator, then more power to them, but they would be smart to be wary of this obvious fraudster.
In any case, your hand-waving about Biden’s statements from the 1980s about his college years is quite obviously nothing but a distraction, as you would really rather nobody criticized O’Donnell for anything. Leave Christine alone!
The alternative is to be a complete hypocrite.
Again, I ask you, do you think O’Donnell should be elected, in light of all of her problems? What about Biden? Are you calling for his resignation? Instead of whining about other people sharing their opinions, why don’t you give us yours? Be sure not to be hypocritical!
“Yes, I do know that this character is from Iowahawk”
Anybody not on Juneau’s team, i.e., not a Trog, believe this for an instant?
Funny, you are the one who generally disappears without a response after I have quoted multiple sources in support of a statement I have made. And you question whether or not I knew the Hillary point was false? As you wish, it makes no difference…
“Instead of whining about other people sharing their opinions, why don’t you give us yours?”
Sure. My opinion covers a fair amount of ground but could probable be summed up decently as follows; Many public figures have been “caught out” making false or misleading statements to try and make them look more “something” – more brave, more intelligent, more experienced… whatever. For instance, if you want a true sample of this from Hillary, just recall her statement about landing in a war zone under fire, which she later admitted didn’t happen.
My opinion is that O’Donnell has done this, been called out on it as most people are, and is being examined as a result of it. But that is where you and I part ways on the conclusion about what it means in regards to her character.
Several of the issues mentioned would appear to be quite a bit more grey than presented here on OTB. For example, even though O’Donnell makes the Oxford reference on her resume, I had to go to another source to find out that she also qualified that by listing the actual course name of the class she attended along with a “Phoenix University” identifier. There is an unanswered question about how big the font was (i.e. was it clearly legible) but nonetheless, it would seem that she did not simply put down “Oxford University.”
This brings up another valid point as well. The example I saw online shows a bulleted list with the name Oxford University. O’Donnell says she took the class “at” Oxford, not “from” Oxford. Again, I think this is clearly “padding in appearance” , but is also quite common on a resume. I have attended short classes at Georgetown University related to my profession. On my resume I have two columns for entries; “Class Name” and “Location.” The location I name for the class I took says “Georgetown University” – because that’s where it was taught at. It doesn’t mean I am claiming I attended Georgetown University and, if anyone were to say I was trying to give that impression by doing so, I would have to ask you if you were smoking crack. Is this the situation with O’Donnell? I don’t know, but it certainly isn’t black and white, as you Progs would like folks to believe.
There are several facts which I have read about which seem to mitigate your contention that she is still “trying to defend a lie.” For example, you keep saying that she never earned a degree, but she has now been issued one by the University. I seriously doubt that this school, in the interest of making O’Donnell look better, simply handed over a degree that was not earned. Since O’Donnell obviously hasn’t been going to school recently – and therefore if there were any outstanding credits to be earned, she would not have earned them – then one has to wonder exactly what prevented the degree from being presented to her.
Is it possible that O’Donnell believed she had completed the coursework and that all which remained was to pay her outstanding tuition? Who knows. I do know that you have to qualify and complete a checklist related to a degree before it is presented. I also know that, since the college realizes you will likely be in the wind after graduation, most if not all colleges will require all debts to be paid before the degree is issued. I assume that was the way it was at the college you graduated from, if you attended college.
If I had been confirmed as having earned a degree by the college, but if I did not have it in hand because I had to finish paying off debts to the college, I would have no problem telling anyone that I had earned the degree. I know that you think O’Donnell is an idiot but, seriously, if she was intentionally lying, how self-destructive would you have to be to run for public office knowing that all someone had to do was make a phone call to find you out?
As far as the remainder of your point – related to her “stealing” campaign funds – there has been absolutely no finding of fact in that matter at all. Whatever the ultimate outcome, your statement is just your hopeful thinking that it is true. you desire her to be a clear thief, therefore you have convicted her of being one without any supporting evidence. This behavior is one of the many reasons why you’re a Prog and I’m not.
….and defaulted on her mortgage.
Now that, my friend, is rich, coming from a Prog who wholeheartedly supports Prog programs such as the CRA (which led to most of the defaulted mortgages). It is revealing to know that your Prog judgement of wretched unworthiness extends to those millions of Americans who have had their homes foreclosed upon. Additionally, I guess that when it comes to “the people” it was the evil banks and their dishonest lending that made them default, but when it comes to O’Donnell, the default is a sign of her lack of integrity and responsibility.
That’s just too funny. Revealing and two-faced…. but still funny.
“This behavior is one of the many reasons why you’re a Prog and I’m not.”
I kind of skimmed your comment, Juneau, because 8 paragraphs of rationalizing is a bit much to read through, but seriously, this O’Donnell thing has been funny.
Her opponents are seizing on this, not because they’re overly concerned with academic honesty, but because they don’t like her policies.
You are defending her, not because you think lying on your resume is okay, but because you like her policies.
Indeed, the behavior is quite similar. It’s equally disingenuous, equally politically motivated, just as opportunistic as the other guy.
“You are defending her, not because you think lying on your resume is okay, but because you like her policies.”
If you had not found 8 paragraphs too strenuous to read, you would have realized that I am not, in fact, defending O’Donnell any more than I would defend Biden or Hillary or ? I am simply not condemning her. Just as – you will notice – I did not condemn Biden or Hillary.
What’s wrong, the idea of fairness simply not to your liking?
had to go to another source to find out that she also qualified that by listing the actual course name of the class she attended along with a “Phoenix University” identifier.
What source? Link please.
For example, you keep saying that she never earned a degree, but she has now been issued one by the University
Where did I say she never earned a degree? I didn’t.
Since O’Donnell obviously hasn’t been going to school recently – and therefore if there were any outstanding credits to be earned, she would not have earned them – then one has to wonder exactly what prevented the degree from being presented to her.
Funny how in your exhaustive research through many sources, you missed this:
She hadn’t completed her coursework, and did so just this summer, and she had outstanding tuition bills.
I assume that was the way it was at the college you graduated from, if you attended college.
I’ve attended, and graduated, from more than one, and yes, you have to pay your bills to complete your degree (not your loans, as O’Donnell’s campaign has claimed). She didn’t pay her bills, and she didn’t finish her coursework. The question is, why did it take her 17 extra years to do so, all the while claiming she had a degree from an institution that had not granted her one? Odd behavior, don’t you think?
I know that you think O’Donnell is an idiot but, seriously, if she was intentionally lying, how self-destructive would you have to be to run for public office knowing that all someone had to do was make a phone call to find you out?
You’re right, I think she’s an idiot.
As far as the remainder of your point – related to her “stealing” campaign funds –
You use quotes to indicate that I used the word “stealing.” I did not. You really shouldn’t do things like that. It’s dishonest.
there has been absolutely no finding of fact in that matter at all
She has admitted using campaign funds to pay for living expenses. She’s also left employees unpaid, been successfully sued more than once for unpaid debts, and been cited by the FEC for failure to report contributions at least eight times. She’s failed to file tax returns for her non-profit for several years. We’ll see if she has more trouble with the FEC as a result of the investigation, supported by an affidavit from her campaign’s chief financial advisor, but I have an educated guess about which way that will go.
Now that, my friend, is rich, coming from a Prog who wholeheartedly supports Prog programs such as the CRA…
How do you know what I support? I’ve never said anything about the CRA here.
…(which led to most of the defaulted mortgages).
Where’d you get that info? It ain’t true.
It is revealing to know that your Prog judgement of wretched unworthiness extends to those millions of Americans who have had their homes foreclosed upon. Additionally, I guess that when it comes to “the people” it was the evil banks and their dishonest lending that made them default, but when it comes to O’Donnell, the default is a sign of her lack of integrity and responsibility.
Wretched unworthiness? I’m debating whether a person is a good candidate for the US Senate. While I do, in fact, support programs that help lower income people find a way to purchase houses (within limits), it doesn’t follow that I should think people who default on their mortgages should be Senators. Hell, maybe some of them could, but that’s just a drop in the bucket that is O’Donnell’s long history of irresponsibility in her work and personal finances. Why anyone would believe someone that demonstrably irresponsible should be a Senator, I have no idea.
That’s just too funny. Revealing and two-faced…. but still funny.
What’s funny is you twisting yourself in knots trying to figure out ways that O’Donnell’s huge list of dishonest and irresponsible actions are just simple misunderstandings.
What’s even funnier is all this chatter about someone who will never, ever be a senator from Delaware or anywhere else…much like all the chatter about Sarah Palin, who will never, ever, set foot inside the Oval Office, well, maybe as a guest of a future president, possibly…
“you would have realized that I am not, in fact, defending O’Donnell any more than I would defend Biden or Hillary”
Oh, sorry Juneau. I read your 8 paragraphs. (Happy?) One of them, I’d like to quote from:
“For example, even though O’Donnell makes the Oxford reference on her resume, I had to go to another source to find out that she also qualified that by listing the actual course name of the class she attended along with a “Phoenix University” identifier. There is an unanswered question about how big the font was (i.e. was it clearly legible) but nonetheless, it would seem that she did not simply put down “Oxford University.”
This….is a defense.
> It is revealing to know that your Prog judgement of wretched unworthiness extends to those millions of Americans who have had their homes foreclosed upon.
Unworthy in general, no. Unworthy to be a United States Senator, sure.