On the degrees issues: Lets us differentiate authenticity from illegality The jurist is not defending anything or 'not defending' anything... But just that , from first principles of legality , retroactive application of law etc, 1. Where there is no law forbidding, nothing is illegal 2. Where a law later changes to introduce a new norm, those who acted differently before the change have not fallen foul of the law. This is important principle of legality Thus, where an institution confers degrees lawfully, but later fails to satisfy certain new legal or quality criteria, the consequences of the inability to satisfy this new norm do not affect those who acted in the absence of the newly promulgated prescriptions. This is logical for to behave any differently would offend ius certum and ius praevium sub elements of the nulla poena sine lege maxims as well as nullum crimen sine lege principles But legal does not of course mean robust or the most optimal ......