exemption of religion schools from accreditation

to me it just seems like a loophole in the law because i have never seen anyone, anywhere, anytime who has been able to describe exactly how the accreditation process might impinge upon, or restrict or otherwise negatively impact the content of the teaching that occurs in a university that offers degrees in theology, divinity or religion. so when i hear that a school is unaccredited because the school is unwilling to subject itself to the accreditation process because that process will restrict their teachings, well, i just want to know, "how will your teachings be effected?" and , of course, i never get an answer because the school is just jumping through a loophole. there is no restriction, it's just a game that the school is playing to avoid the accreditation process. is there anyone who can tell me, precisely, what a school would not be allowed to teach if they became accredited?

 

It's not necessarily a loophole. The problem usually comes with the state authorization process. To require a religious institution to receive approval from the state would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

I think accreditation is the best course, but I don't want government restricting religious training.

 

You're right, it's just a smoke-screen. Many unaccredited seminaries go on and on about why they don't want "government accreditation" (which is actually private). If they don't want "government accreditation," they have three options for religious accreditation: the Association of Theological Seminaries in the United States and Canada, the Association for Biblical Higher Education, and the Transnational Association for Christian Colleges and Schools. The truth is that many unaccredited seminaries who go on and on with their sour grapes rhetoric about "governmental accreditation" are probably not good enough to get accreditation.

 

But that's my question. How would accreditation restrict religious training?

 

A government saying, "You must do X, Y, and Z in order to run your pastoral training school" is placing the government in a position of authority over the religious organization.

 

Yes, that's the myth. What I'm asking is "What SPECIFICALLY would be restricted?" I have never gotten a clear answer and you are adding to that list. There is no specific doctrine or belief that would be restricted. It's just a loophole that allows these schools to remain unaccredited.

 

in fact, an increasing number of US citizens are not christian

 

The very fact that the government would be required to "authorize" or "approve" an institution is a restriction in and of itself.

It's not a matter of doctrine per se; it's the principle that the government does not have the authority to oversee or to approve religious training.

That being said, it is often abused, but that's the nature of the first amendment.

 

See Steves post above this qoute. I think he answers your questions.

 

Then non-Christian religious schools can form their own accreditation agency if one doesn't already exist.

 

They do, indeed!

They do indeed, as you say, Ted

Anyone interested may go to www.chea.org - look under "faith-based accreditors" and they will find recognized other-than-Christian accreditors. Well -- at least a couple, anyway.

Johann

 

I can imagine a few situations where a religious school might feel restricted. Imagine a university where the biology department is restricted from teaching evolution, and the schools require that their instructors teach from a creationism. I could imagine some of the regional accreditors refusing to accredit a university that gives biology degrees/courses that go against accepted standards of the scientific community.

Also, there are social regulations that might cause regional accreditors to refuse to grant a university accreditation. For example, until 2000, Bob Jones University had an official policy banning interracial dating among their students. WTF? I can't imagine a regional accreditor giving BJU a pass on that issue. So these schools stay non-RA.

In all, I think it is a moot point. Back when no-one knew the difference between RA and non-RA, it was a big deal for a school to be able to legally grant degrees. Now? Most HR departments know the difference. If someone's resume came across my desk listing a religious, but non-RA school, personally, I would probably treat the resume as if the degree didn't exist. I would probably give the guy some credit if it was DETC, but other than that, nothing.

 

Good points. And similar to Steve's earlier point. Perhaps it's not that they are restricted from teaching something in particular but that they become required to teach something they see as "extra." (and undesirable).

 

Hey, as it now stands, religious schools have the right to remain crappy and unaccredited if they so choose, just as secular schools have every right to remain crappy and unaccredited if they so choose. Conversely, religious schools have accreditation agencies they can apply to if they so choose just as secular schools have accreditation agencies they can apply to if they so choose. And that's just fine by me.

 

Is this the case? I thought that generally speaking people can't just open up their own unaccredited school ... unless it offers only religious degrees, hence this "religious exemption" thread.

Are there states which allow people to just open their own unaccredited schools offering non-religious degrees with no accreditation requirements? I ask purely out of curiosity, not because I plan to open University of New Trident University College International there ... *shifty eyes*

 

Yes - get a license and you can open the school just about anywhere -- but in some states, you have a finite window to get recognized accreditation - or leave! (e.g. Wyoming) As Steve points out, the license is harder to come by in some states than others.

Hawaii seems to have fairly easy requirements to open a school. California now has the BPPE which (I think) is pretty fair. I think that in those States where schools are NOT required to accredit - fair regulations and good oversight attract a better quality of unaccredited institutions. Some of the schools "want to be good" - the others go to laissez-faire jurisdictions.

Johann