Liberty University

I feel I have had the misfortune of bait/switch with this school. It is now in SACS hands...I am of course getting a lawyer involved.

I have so much proof in email alone, I can't believe how beligerant they were with me!


Please email me at [email protected] if you've had experience with them - but also DO post so others are warned!

 

liberty university in virginia is a distinguished school. what problems did u have. if it was a different one, clarify

 

Their "image" is not what I am talking about.

Here is what happened.
*Let me state that this was all IN WRITING.

I asked BEFORE signing up, if they would take my communications experience for their GEED/Portfolio assessment.
They said YES.
Numerous times.
I paid.
Spent (wasted) time making portfolio.
At end, before my portfolio was even brought forth, I was told, "oops, we don't accept any communications"...
Then from another, "we never accepted communications"
From another, "We DO accept communications"
From another, "We accept all life experience".
From another, "we made a mistake, please take two free courses"
From another, "We didn't make a mistake".


It goes on and on. Like a two YEAR circus! I finally was getting no where with getting simply my money for the GEED class back..so now SACS is looking into it.
Their image and their business dealings are totally different things.

From my research, they broke laws - not just policies.

 

and this is the one in virginia?

 

?

You have not had an issue with Liberty.
As I stated in the other post on the other thread...

"As you could clearly see from the login, I am the same person who posted about Liberty.

Who "wants" to sue is future tense. Not present, therefore you are corrected.

I really do not wish to discuss anything further with you. I stated my opinion on NWCU and Liberty. If you have not had a problem with Liberty, and if you have not had any personal experience with NWCU, my interest in communicating with you is nill.



Thanks for your input."

 

Distinguished?

Hi,

Liberty is hardly a distinguished school, recognized in the area, but I wouldn't say distinguished. They make it very hard for the college freshman who is there to actually get an education, and not to become a pastor or evangelist or whatever Fallwell calls himself. Yes it is a nice campus, and yes there are some very good teachers there (at least for some of the lower division classes), but I did have an awful lot of problems with their administration and registrar's office when I tried to transfer. Good luck with your problem, I wouldn't mind seeing Fallwell turned upside-down and had some money jingle out

 

Myles

I think the other person is not coming from a place of experience but hearsay, which he is basing my post on.

Also, we are not talking at all about the on-campus learning, but the distance.

I had been in their psychology distance program and it was so amazingly outdated. Many people I spoke to at the time were simply dropping out and taking a financial loss because the tapes and teachings were both very dated and almost laughable.
Laughable if it wasn't your education, career and money on the line.

I am not stating that some professors are not up to par; simply my issue.

I have never heard that the school is outstanding from anyone; and part of my work is to work with colleges all over the nation!

 

When you make the choice to go to some religious whack-job school like Liberty, you will get your just desserts.

Falwell is heinous in every way imaginable, so it does not surprise me that some students, of which you are one, are being ripped off.

Unless you completely buy into the entire programme, and that includes worshipping and believing the way that Falwell says you must, you should not be at Liberty University.

 

Kudos

Kudos on your insight.
However, I don't want to use "ripped off" as that would imply that I am not to see remedy. I will see remedy. I will have my tuition back, and I will see justice done.

In defense and fairness, I actually was told that it did not matter per religion, that per the distance program it was not as strict "per the religious" aspects.
Talking about God too much when "God" doesn't apply is called "Propaganda" and they should be aware that this too, can be used against them in court if they push too hard. One can not be discriminated against for religious beliefs.

My concern more is that they are not an organized school.
My concern is that they violated laws.
My concern is that they are not upholding to SACS standards and policies.

I am just one person, and as one person, I can and am bringing justice to this.
However, I want it to be known that other's do not have to sit and feel helpless, there are actions one can take.

Just because you are a distance student does not mean you are less of a student; you have rights - the education rights, the FERPA rights, Title IX, Civil Rights..... there are MANY rights to which you are entitled.

The more noise we make the more they have to listen.
Let's make them be accountable.

 

You may have a solid case on the grounds of detrimental reliance based upon false promises made. Your likely remedy would be a return of your money plus some compensation for time wasted, unlikely to get punitive damages.

As for religious discrimination, I do not believe that you have any actionable case there; as a private institution, they have every right to discriminate on such grounds--they would have the right, if they so wished, to demand that you sign a doctrinal statement professing your belief in whatever narrow set of doctrines to which they subscribe. Some schools are a bit absurd on this account--e.g.: Billy Graham was given the bum's rush out of Bob Jones University in the 1930s, I guess because Bob himself considered Graham too radical and liberal in his beliefs!

 

me thinks "loveprobono" gonna have problems regardless of which school he attends.........

 

Private Institution...

Although a private institution- don't they recieve ANY federal funding? That would mean that they have to be under FERBA at the least, right?

I am not in arms about the religious aspect. That's more comical to me than anything to tell you the truth.

The other though - the bait/switch - that's another thing.

I am, at this time, asking for my tuition and costs incurred, as well as for them to be accountable for their actions with distance students. They are now going to be a bit more transparent, so that should help...with SACS and lawyers looking at them.

They need their prayers now. LOL

 

He is a She

Howard,

It's hard to take you seriously since you were not even sold on Liberty until they changed their name per you didn't want to look at a Diploma with their old name. (not based on anything but the superficial) as below.... If you honestly can offer nothing but negative remarks meant to mock or surmise, please refrain from my posts.

Senior Member

Registered: Nov 2001
Location: Alabama
Posts: 606


"Somehow I find this difficult to accept. I would have started Liberty University a couple of years earlier but, at the time, it was called Liberty University School of LifeLone Learning(LUSLLL) and I just could not see myself looking at a diploma that had such a name on it. ....."

 

For most purposes--other than a few exceptions that only Constitutional Law professors care about, such as funds for sign language interpreters--it would be a serious Constitutional problem for the federal or state governments to fund Liberty. The flip side of Liberty's right to religious Free Exercise and the ability to discriminate on religious grounds, to enforce a dress code, a no-dancing policy, or whatever catches their fancy, is the Establishment Clause, which prevents the government from favoring one religion over another, or favoring religion over irreligion. Liberty cannot legally receive federal funds--with a few narrow exceptions.

As for Carl's enlightened--and very predictable--comments: I find it bizarre that one can so gleefully refer to one of a different theological stripe as a "whack job" or "heinous in every way." I am no Falwell apologist and have some profound problems with the guy's image, but for Carl to refer to someone that he has likely never met and has probably not read 10 words he has written in that manner is infantile and bigoted.

 

So...

Liberty does not get a dime of federal funding? No students there are federal work study?

Does not being federally funded make Liberty immune to some laws? (not asking in sarcasm...enlighten me!)

As far as Carl - I agree. You could not like him (Jerry Boy) for his religion or his hair or anything, but that has no bearing on the subject. As far as Howie. Well. Let's leave that one alone

 

Response to charges of infantilism and bigotry...

Well, here are some words by the great enlightened college president, Jerry Falwell, that I actually HAVE read. Draw your own conclusions on my previous commentary...

"I think Mohammed was a terrorist. I read enough...by both Muslims and non-Muslims (to decide) he was a violent man, a man of war"

Regarding the world trade center attacks Falwell said this...

"And, I know that I'll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The
abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way - all of them who have tried to secularize America - I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'"

and about public education....

"I hope I live to see the day when, as in the early days of our country, we won't have any public schools. The churches will have taken them over again and Christians will be running them. What a happy day that will be!"

and about AIDS....

"AIDS is not just God's punishment for homosexuals; it is God's punishment for the society that tolerates homosexuals."

and about the separation of Church and State...

"The idea that religion and politics don't mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country."

"There is no separation of church and state. Modern U.S. Supreme Courts have raped the Constitution and raped the Christian faith and raped the churches by misinterpreting what the Founders had in mind in the First Amendment to the Constitution."

Note that the word count is considerably more than 10, and I read as much of this drivel as I could possibly tolerate without vomiting.

So who is the terrorist? These statements, from a "leading US university president", sound more like they come from the camp of our enemies, and the enemies of all democracy, than from one of the Bush league's leading proponents. If my viewpoint that this man is heinous and needs to be called such makes me infantile and a bigot, then so be it....

 

Love:

I honestly couldn't tell you about federal work study and its interrelationship with the Establishment Cause or it necessitating compliance with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the EEOC, etc.; but suffice it to say that except under certain limited circumstances, they can't receive federal funding, and they can discriminate on religious grounds, even in hiring.

Of course, you would want it to be this way, can you imagine a Catholic congregation being forced to entertain Mr. Falwell's application for the parish priest position, and being prevented from ruling him out on religious grounds; or being forced at the local synagogue to interview one belonging to an anti-semitic supremacist church for the new youth director position?

However, one cannot post an ad in the classifieds stating: "Sales Help Wanted, Joe's Used Cars, Christians only need apply."--that's a clear violation of the '64 CRA.

 

Is this a prime example of liberal tolerance? Unfortunately, this IS an -a- typical example. Actually, a couple of new stories I have seen have focussed on the liberal left on campuses (believe John Stoessel did one on 'give me a break'). In the name of tolerance leftist students eschew intellectual debate and resule to tactics such as shouting down conservative sepakers so they cannot have their ideas heard, etc. That kind of behavior irritates me. I enjoy hearing both sides of an argument and try to keep an open mind. That is why I voted one time for Clinton, the next against. I am a conservative Protestant Christian and yet enjoy hearing and seek to understand Catholic theological perspectives. Enjoyed Peter Gomes book (The Good Book). Gomes is an African American homosexual Christian and holds a Chair at Princeton. His book makes a case for why homosexuality is not unbiblical. I may not agree with his arguments but I enjoyed reading them and trying to understand his perspective.

As to Falwell.....
Although he may not be everyone's cup of tea to say "Falwell is heinous in every way imaginable" is hyperbole (hateful and anti intellectual). Falwell earned the irritation of folks when he met with a large group of homosexual Christian activitists in order to seek to understand. He received a lot of criticism. Pretty heinous there. Runs homes for pregnant girls...pretty heinous there. Gives significant tuition discounts to military and law enforcement. Pretty heinous.

"Religious wack job". As a conservative evangelical Christian, I appreciate your broad minded tolerance.

As to needing to buy into his program. Students in the external program do not need to hold to a relgious perspective. I enrolled in a couple of counseling courses and found very little religious content.

It amazes me the amount of hate out there for evangelical Christians. Someone said it is the only safe bigotry left. I am seeing more and more of it. The founding fathers would be amazed.

North

 

Carl:

I've got a $100 that says you googled those comments AFTER you made your earlier post. I think I know why you posted earlier, the name "Falwell"--and probably all prominent conservative Christian leaders (or all prominent conservatives or Christians in general)--set you off on a pavlovian drool of rage.

I'll take your comments one at a time.

Mohammed was a man of war, let's not fool ourselves. Was he a terrorist? I don't know, but let's not pretend that it isn't radical Islam that's attacking us, it's certainly not the Crusaders. And the Islamic extremists are not getting their inspiration from Jesus' admonition to "love others", they're getting it from their belief system.

As for God's judgment upon a culture that aborts over 1,000,000 babies per year while untold couples desperately want to adopt, who am I to judge--I would suppose God may have some beef there, or do you think He believes it's a trifling matter?

Public education? Have you taught those who are products of our public education system? I have, and I would as soon that we returned to the system that existed when our "ignorant" Founding Fathers put together our Constitution. Poor James Madison--hampered by lack of public education, initially homeschooled, then forced to learn under the heinous control of a Presbyterian minister--worte nearly the entire Constitution at the age of 36. My wife and I homeschool--and make no apologies for it.

Homosexuality? Whether you like it or not, AIDS is in part a product of the fact that homosexual activity between males is physiologically a terribly dangerous activity if between multiple partners. It facilitates blood exchange in a manner that standard heterosexual conduct never can; many experts and researchers believe this created the AIDS epidemic. AIDS existed well prior to the 1970s, but it was a relatively mild virus. However, mild viruses are always spinning off virulent mutations. In the past, those who were unlucky enough to acquire mutated forms died quickly before it could be passed on and create an epidemic. It took a sexual revolution, gay pride, and heroin addiction in this country to give the mutations a chance to spread to others before they killed the host--viola, the AIDS epidemic. AIDS is a terrible problem in the African continent for reasons of heterosexual unclean and dangerous sex--there are a some cultures where the frequent solicitation of prostitutes by married men is winked at, and as a result, they have a disastrous epidemic. When very dangerous activities such as male-to-male sexual contact, needle exchanges, frequent solicitation of prostitutes, etc. becomes accepted in a culture, you can expect such epidemics. This is the very likely reason for the influenza epidemic in the wake of World War I; millions of young men were thrust together in very unsanitary conditions--trench warfare--in a manner unprecedented in world history. What is the role of God's judgment in all this? I don't know, but I certainly don't think he's pleased with the situation in Africa or America, and a God of love is certainly capable of judging and punishing human activity, in the same manner that I occasionally--in love--move my hand in a rapid horizontal manner coming into immediate and unsolicited contact with my children's bottoms.

Separation of Church and State? The phrase does not exist in the U.S. Constitutuion--but it existed in the defunct Soviet Constitution, a document I suspect you look back upon wistfully. Did you know, Carl, that in the Revolutionary Period 9 of 13 of the colonies had official state religions? I believe that New Jersey was Presbyterian, Virginia Episcopalian. Somehow they didn't see that as conflicting with the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. On this point, Falwell is absolutely Constitutionally correct--"separation of church and state" as it's now understood, was a later invention of the judiciary. The Founding Fathers would be astonished at your postmodern interpretation.

 

I don't think that too many people on this board take Carl very seriously; I sure don't. He's firmly anti-religion as evidenced by his previous posts and seems to find some kind of pleasure in bashing Christians.