Falwell responds to newspaper article about Liberty U financial aid.

Do you remember the thread several months ago that discussed Liberty blocking a newspaper on their servers that he believed painted them as doing the greedy student loan thing like some of the profit schools? Falwell finally addressed the incident here: Falwell clarifies federal aid benefactors | Liberty University

Bullet Points:

The newspaper article said:
-Liberty did receive $445 million last year in student loan and other federal funds
-Implied that Liberty was pocketing a large portion

Falwell said:
-The newspaper had an agenda and only published part of the story leading to erroneous conclusions
-Falwell asked the newspaper to publish a follow-up with all of the information and they refused

Information the newspaper failed to include:
-Liberty is the 8th largest 4 year university in the nation and the numbers are commensurate with that size
-86% of this money is in the form of loans that are repaid by students
-$200 million of the $445 is refunded to students who spend it to cover living expenses
-The default rate of Liberty students is about half that of the national average
-Liberty students financed their education through private lenders before Obama nationalized student loans
-Liberty is an extremely positive economic presence in the small town of Lynchburg
-Has funded community enhancements like the football stadium and the artificial snow ski/snowboard hill
-Liberty has created 4115 new jobs without receiving any economic development money afforded to other developing businesses
-The Moody Corp. said that Liberty has become a key stabilizing factor in the once withering economy of Lynchburg

-

 

Media has an agenda? You don't say....

 

While I applaud Washington's efforts to try to account for student aid spending (and wish that they would dedicate as much effort to eliminating wasteful spending on Capitol Hill and the White House), I really am disappointed (but not surprised) with the media's inept handling of this and similar issues. Publishing only part of the story (whether deliberately withholding useful information or not possessing the research skills to obtain the whole story) seems to be the rule, not the exception.

 

The 03/17/11 News & Advance story in question can be viewed online here. So anyone can review both the original story and Liberty's response, which for some reason was not released until 08/17/11 (five months later).

Liberty does not dispute the accuracy of any of the points made in the story. This is not surprising, because the story is clearly based on an interview with Liberty's own Executive Director of Financial Aid, whose own words are quoted extensively. Their objections are based solely on the belief that "factual omissions" could cause "misinterpretations to be drawn".

I fail to see the possible "misinterpretations" that Liberty is so concerned about. The article doesn't say or imply that Liberty is any different than any other large universities in regards to financial aid policiies. On the contrary, it compares Liberty to UoP and Kaplan (which seems fair given its size), although it notes (correctly) that Liberty differs as a non-profit, Evangelical Christian school.

 

Where does the original story say or imply that the loans are misappropriated? Please cite the exact words.

The headlines of the story were: "Liberty tops state in federal aid for its students" and "Online enrollment spurs big increase in assistance".
Aren't both of these points completely true ?

Actually, that information is in the original story, which states :

Based on the newspaper's numbers, loans were 86.7 % of the total. So where exactly is the factual omission ?

 

Caldog, you are right. I mixed up that blog that had all the vehement opinions about Liberty with the actual newspaper article the blog referred to. Falwell didn't reply to the blog and probably never knew about it; he replied to the newspaper. I changed the wording in my original post on this thread to be more accurate, thanks for catching my mistake.

About your other statements, there are facts that the newspaper article left out that would have given a more equatable perspective on Liberty 's financial practices, as noted above and with more information in the article link. I'm sure you read the whole thing so I will not repeat it.

 

It is of note that this issue hit the local news during the same time-frame as LU was lobbying for the city to pay for road upgrades that would make access (to Walmart of all places) easier for students. When the paper published these numbers, it appeared to many locals that they were trying to make it sound as though LU should be funding the upgrade rather than the city.

While "we" understand the numbers, I'm not sure that Joe Q. Public follows these dynamics.

Either way, I don't understand Dr. Falwell's decision to block the newspaper's website from campus temporarily.

 

Just in case it seems as though there is a long-standing tension between LU and local media, let me be clear that that doesn't appear (to me) to be the case. In fact, when the study was commissioned related to how much LU contributes to the local economy and then when the study was published - both were front-page stories.

Dr. Falwell (Jr) has been very vocal about financial dynamics that should be in place due to LU's size and economic impact. Such as differing tax rates, zoning allowances, different voting locations, upgraded roads, etc. Public backlash (from those without LU connections mainly) was pretty intense. It seemed to subside when facts were laid bare as to the economic impact of the school. This newspaper article (about financial aid) came out just when things seemed to be stabilizing.

 

Interesting, thank you for that.