Friday’s Oregonian includes a letter to the editor from a dissatisfied citizen, one Robin DesCamp, about the class action lawsuit we filed against Western Culinary Institute and its parent corporation Career Education Corp. Oregonian, B-7 (Mar. 7, 2008; sorry, but it doesn’t appear to be on-line).

Ms. DesCamp apparently has issues. According to her, the quote attributed to me in The Oregonian’s Thursday story provides no “valid basis for a cause of action against an educational institution.” Her prose–with all of its legal terminology–suggests that Ms. DesCamp went to law school. A quick search confirms that she is an Oregon attorney.

Ms. DesCamp mistakenly believes that “two women are suing the trade school for not providing them with lucrative careers upon graduation.” Well that’s some nice rhetoric, but it’s completely incorrect. Two women are suing because they claim were defrauded by two corporations in the trade-school-for-profit business. They seek repayment of tuition and debt relief, and they are not alone.

The complaint is available for Ms. DesCamp’s review. It might actually enlighten her to read it. It’s in this post: http://www.pspc.com/2008/03/western-culinary-institutecec-class-action-complaint

Unless she’s talked to WCI students and witnesses or attended the school, Ms. DesCamp won’t know the facts of how the students have been defrauded. It’s not proper to discuss them here, but let’s just say that the truth usually outs.

There is a certain bitterness and meanness in her letter. For example, she tries to compare the student debt load from trade school with that of a four-year university program. Weird stuff, when you think about it. You go to trade school to learn, well, a trade. That’s to say, you are there precisely for that reason. That’s a little different than what happens when you go to a four-year university to major in English literature. (Note for the humor challenged: I really don’t have anything against English majors….) To ridicule this case by suggesting I should handle bigger ones is wrong.

Ms. DesCamp should know better. As an Oregon lawyer, she surely knows that you can’t accurately evaluate a case based upon a quote in the news reports. Her assessments of what I think, what the plaintiffs knew, what claims they are making, and what relief they seek are all wrong. That’s fine. But if she is going to offer comment, it seems only fair and right and good that she at least learn the facts.

David F. Sugerman