Forcing Secular Ideas on Christian Colleges

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by me again, Jan 11, 2002.

Loading...
  1. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    Here is a link to an interesting article that discusses secularism being forcefully imposed on Christian colleges and universities with the threat of losing:
    1. state and Federal funding or
    2. the loss of regional accreditation if the school doesn’t change.
    http://www.adventistreview.org/2002-1503/story5.html

    I see two dangers:

    1. Christian colleges and universities may lose their state and Federal funding if they don’t adopt certain secular laws. This will invariably cause some schools to collapse because they’ve grown accustomed to state and Federal grants. (example: if a Christian school refuses to adopt the new “gay rights” law that was passed in California, then the state may withdraw its funding).

    2. Christian colleges and universities may lose their regional accreditation if they don’t adopt certain secular laws. This will invariably cause some schools to fold because parents won’t send their children to a school that is not regionally accredited.
     
  2. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member



    All businesses should have to operate within the law. Religions and their organized affiliates should not be exempted from laws that protect citizens. Institutions that break the law cerrtainly should not receive funding from the government. Nor should the receive any form of tax break. It's ridiculous to allow this one form of business to behave unlawfully. They want "freedom," yet still wish to suckle at the breast of government? I say, no funding AND shut 'em down. Colleges and universities are not private clubs. They must not discriminate unlawfully. If they want to become private clubs, then they should pay taxes and not receive any governmental assistance or special consideration. Of course, students at accredited schools should still be able to apply for and receive federal financial aid. But....

    An unlawful institution shouldn't be accredited, either.

    Rich Douglas
     
  3. Chip

    Chip Administrator

    On the other hand, Bob Jones University in Greenville, SC has (as far as I know) never been regionally accredited for just the reasons you state... to avoid the state meddling in their affairs... and they seem to be doing quite well.

    Additionally, as far as I know, other schools have no problems recognizing and accepting degrees from BJU, since it's one of the very rare breeds of unaccrediteds that has a high quality faculty and solid curriculum.

    I agree that, in general, it's hard for a school to maintain credibility if it loses accreditation. But I also have a hard time with a school receiving public funding and refusing to serve a portion of the public (gays, Buddhists, whatever).

    I see the inherent conflict, but I think it's one of those things that's difficult to reconcile. Schools that wish to discriminate for religious reasons should probably be allowed to do so, but I don't think that my tax dollars should go to support a school that automatically excludes someone because of their religious belief, sexual orientation, or (in the case of BJU) the fact that they've chosen to marry a person of another race.
     
  4. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    The Moody Bible Institute has not sought regional accreditation for similar reasons: They do not want a secular agency dictating what they must (and must not) do to maintain accreditation. Subsequently, they have been offering unaccredited bachelors degrees for quite some time now.

    While I don’t know much about the Moody Bible Institute and how rigorous its academics are, I’ve never heard anyone speak ill of it.

    This is the greatest danger of accepting state and Federal monies: Organizations that were once financially strong can become addicted to the nourishing financial tits of the government. Once that addiction occurs, it’s almost impossible to break away without “going under.”

    The Feds Exert Power by Withholding Monies
    As an extreme example in a different vein, the Federal government built the interstate system and provided enormous amounts of monies to the states to maintain it. However, when Arizona (?) refused to raise the legal age for drinking from 18 to 21, the Feds ”cut off” the money supply to maintain that portion of the interstate that went through Arizona. Subsequently, the interstate in Arizona fell into disrepair was plagued with potholes. When I drove through Arizona back in 1979, it couldn’t believe how terrible the interstate was. I was dodging giant potholes that could have severely damaged my car. It got so bad that Arizona ”caved in” and raised their legal drinking age so they could begin receiving free Federal monies to begin repairing their section of the roadway.

    And such it is with school: If they have not previously accepted state and Federal monies, then they should refrain from doing so because once that pipeline is opened, the Feds can twist their arm into any compliance that they demand.
     
  5. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Unlawful! Hmmm!

    It seems that I remember reading how the National Socialist party in pre-WWII Germany began to single out various groups, charging that they were not oriented to the "LAW," and needed to be forced to do so. What began with a few isolated events ended up including Jews, homosexuals, the mentally/physically challenged, and basically everyone else who did not embrace the "LAW."

    While Christian colleges/universities/seminaries must operate financially as a business, producing candidates for Christian service is not a business--but a ministry.

    No, we must not be discriminatory. But when a convicted child molester is working in the daycare where your children stay, by all means use the same logic. Leave the child molester alone, he/she has rights, and we don't want to suckle up to government now do we.

    Russell
     
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    The irony here is that many will take this position and encourage Christian institutions not to accept Federal funding or seek regional accreditation, yet at the same time demean such a school as being academically inferior for not having regional accreditation. Subsequently, the label "degree mill" is applied to such schools.

    Russell
     
  7. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Moody is regionally accredited.
     
  8. Craig

    Craig New Member

    I'd like to hear Steve Levicoff's view on this.

    Another institution that avoids Federal control is Hillsdale College in Michigan (publisher of the famed Imprimus speech digest). As the courts have declared that if even one department receives federal money, then the whole school comes under federal directives, Hillsdale and, I believe, Grove City College in Pennsylvania, do not accept any kind of government funding. Gov't. control also comes if a school accepts student grants and loans programs.

    But, what about the larger picture? In its distribution of funds, the gov't. imposes its moral-religious views on essentially private, religious institutions. Where is the diversity in that? There are enough schools in this country that we don't need a cookie cutter approach. [God knows the accreditation process does enough of that].

    Craig
     
  9. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    I read on their website a few months ago that they were not seeking accreditation for the reasons previously stated. I don't know what to say.
     
  10. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Why is that a danger? Are you suggesting that church run schools should be immune from the law?

    If some religious sect wants to separate itself so dramatically from the "fallen" secular world as to refuse to acknowledge its laws, then why in the world would it solicit that world's money?

    Isn't there something in the Bible about coins bearing Caesar's likeness on them, so that they should be returned to Caesar while you return yourself to the one whose likeness you bear?

    Isn't that the case whenever standards are created and applied? If you don't meet the standards, you don't get the accreditation.

    I see no more reason to bend the rules for Christians than for anyone else.
     
  11. me again

    me again Well-Known Member

    I hope I don’t have the states mixed up on this:

    The California Supreme Court ruled that since the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization, they can reject homosexuals from being troop leaders. The court recognized that the scouts are based on unique Christian principles which believe that homosexuality is wrong.

    Conversely, the New Jersey (?) Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America cannot discriminate against homosexuals because of their sexual orientation and neither can they be dismissed. This one went to a Federal court, which ruled that the scouts can reject homosexuals, since the organization is private with Christian principles that are diametrically opposed to homosexuality.

    However, if the Boy Scouts were accepting Federal monies, I’m sure that the rulings would have been entirely different: The scouts would be required to accept homosexuals as troop leaders of the children. I guess the Boy Scouts aren’t addicted to Federal monies; thus they are exempt from being manipulated and forced into accepting homosexuals as troop leaders.

    Christian colleges and universities that become addicted to Federal monies also subject themselves to the secular laws e.g. they cannot discriminate against sexual orientation, even though homosexuality is diametrically opposed to their unique Christian beliefs.

    It becomes a catch 22: The money or the ethical standards. Which will it be?
     
  12. irat

    irat New Member

    Religion and politics is a funny combination. I believe the "Pledge of Allegance" was a boy scout pledge. It was adopted by Congress with the words "under god" added. Boy Scouts have a special recognition by Congress. Many states give tax money to Boy Scouts for facilities. In VT the state legislature is donating over $100,000 toward a new BS lodge. Mild controversy since this is the state of "civil unions". However, the VT BS Council circulated a letter saying it was open to all Vermonters and would not abide by the National BS ruling. At one time even my daughter was a boy scout.
    The new laws/rules allowing organizations which are essentially religious to receive federal funds is odd. It will be funny to see how it plays out.
    There were some quirks. Students who are in private school, but who are eligible for special education, may receive the special education at the private school. Yet the same student is usually ineligible to be on the public schools sports teams.
     
  13. This was indeed New Jersey. And it went to the U.S. Supreme Court, with majority opinion by Rehnquist.
     
  14. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    So what are you suggesting here, Russell? That all laws are fascist by their very nature? Or just that it's fascist to expect Christians to obey the law?

    I don't want to get into another argument with Andy, so let's not call them businesses. Let's call them universities. Where does a university stop and a ministry start?

    Many Christian colleges offer conventional degrees (BA, MA etc.) in secular subjects, from English lit to computer science. I'd call that an educational function, more appropriate to a university than to a ministry. Many of these places are essentially secular universities that happen to be owned by a church. Georgetown University for example. Others, particularly among the evangelical Christians, have a far more denominational tone. But they still are producing MBAs that they and their graduates expect to be recognized as such by the wider society.

    Other Christian schools offer conventionally titled degrees in religion. In my opinion that's a university function. A Ph.D. in religion is an academic degree.

    Still other Christian colleges and seminaries concern themselves with preparing clergy. The M.Div.s and other pre-professional degrees. I see this as being a grey area, since the functions of both a ministry and a university are being met. I think that if I am expected to accept an M.Div. or a D.Min. as being a real university degree, then the school has to act like a real university. That means meeting basic educational standards.

    Finally there are seminaries that offer courses leading to ordination rather than to the award of a degree. I believe that the Catholics often do it that way. These places may teach to a very high academic standard, but since they don't offer academic degrees and are open only to candidates for the priesthood, they are pretty unambiguously a ministry.

    As I understand it, court cases in several states have found, on Constitutional grounds, in favor of religious exemptions to state licensing laws. A number of states, Virginia for example, have interpreted that to mean that the conventional academic degrees (BA, BS, MA, MS, Ph.D etc.) fall under state authority, but schools that offer degrees with religious degree titles in religious subjects (M.Div., D.Min., Th.D. etc.) can operate essentially without state oversight.

    That's why such a huge number of religious degree mills exist. The weird little independent churches that run doctoral programs from their basements.

    So it's this way:

    If you want to ordain clergy, that's church business... oops, ministry.

    If you want to grant D.Min.s from out of your basement, that's probably legal most places, after a minimal registration process. But your D.Min.s are unlikely to be accepted as legitimate unless they meet some additional standards. That's as it should be.

    But suppose you want to grant Ph.D.s in geology from out of your basement, and claim that the geology you teach is flood geology theoretically from the Bible. Should the government let you? And what's more, should the rest of the planet recognize your degrees? Should you be eligible for big fat government research grants?

    I'd say that you were outta luck. And that's as it should be, too.
     
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Bill,

    What I am suggesting is that the government should not seek to influence the doctrinal positions of a school. And this should be the case whether the institution is Christian, Islamic, Bhuddist, etc. If a school is providing training for those who wish to become Islamic clerics, the government should not require the school to teach Bhuddist theology. My argument has nothing to do with giving Christians special rights/privileges.

    Should Christians obey the law? Indeed, to do otherwise would be foolish. Should degree granting institutions be regulated as to academic standards? I would say yes! But a school should be able, if academic standards are maintained, to operate within its mission statement and propagate its doctrinal position.

    Now certainly I am not suggesting that laws of decency and civility be broken, nor that harmful religious practices be exempt from the law (e.g., offering human sacrifices [​IMG]), only that the state should not interfere with a religious institution's theological/doctrinal position.

    And regarding offering D.Min.'s or Ph.D.'s from one's basement, I think you have read enough of my posts to know I would never advocate such a practice. My academic degrees are RA, and I strongly encourage proper accreditation. But accreditation should address standards of academic quality, not religious orientation.

    Russell
     
  16. Tracy Gies

    Tracy Gies New Member

    Perhaps some Christian colleges would be better off to stand on principle by rejecting secularization, government money, and the strings that come attached with it. They may find success by following BJU's model and avoiding the Catch 22 entirely.

    Tracy<><
     
  17. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    In some ways this is similar to the issues that were raised when George W. Bush proposed that religious organizations ought to be able to compete for social service contracts. Many thought this was a fine idea but among those who were the most opposed were some of the religious organizations themselves who feared 1) the government would begin to impose its will on the organizations, policies, etc. and 2) by accepting the money (in the form of contracts, grants, etc.) the organizations would be required to open their account books to the government in new and possibly unwelcome new ways.
    Jack
     
  18. Chip

    Chip Administrator

    I think it boils down to this:

    People are entitled to hold whatever opinions they like.

    People are entitled to hold whatever religious beliefs they wish.

    Government, in theory, should treat people fairly and equally, without discrimination, and Federal and State laws prohibit discrimination on a variety of things. And, when tax dollars, that theoretically come from everyone in the state or everyone in the US, are used in support of a program, that program should not discriminate against people whose tax dollars helped to support it.

    If a school wishes to use tax dollars, then it shouldn't complain about the strings (non-discrimination) that come with the tax dollars.

    If a school wishes to hold beliefs that are discriminatory, then it should not expect to use tax dollars.

    Accreditation is a slightly sticker issue; here, again, the accreditors are seeking the laudable goal of open access for everyone, by prohibiting discrimination. If a school wishes to discriminate against someone, and it does not wish to receive government money and does not wish to be regionally accredited, then it is free to discriminate. But if it wishes to be recognized and accepted by the accreditor (something which is a privilege, not a right), then the school shouldn't bitch about being ineligible for accreditation because they do not wish to conform to the rules of the organization in which they're seeking membership.

    Point of order: Russell indicated that people have described schools that choose not to seek accreditation for religious reasons (BJU, in this case) as unaccredited, and therefore diploma mills.

    I have never, ever heard anyone refer to BJU as a diploma mill, and I would certainly not describe it that way.

    There are very, very few schools that I believe have truly chosen not to seek accreditation solely for religious reasons.

    The schools that have made that decision, and which comply in every other way with RA standards in academic integrity and rigor, quality of faculty, curriculum, etc. will generally not be considered "unaccredited" for credit transfer purposes, and certainly aren't diploma mills.

    However, there are many, many other "religious" schools that hide behind their religious nature and claim they're not seeking RA for religious reasons when, in fact, they are substandard programs with little or no academic rigor, shoddy faculty, little if any meaningful curriculum, etc. These schools are, by action, intent, and fact, diploma mills... and should rightfully be called for what they are.

    Steve Levicoff wrote a book "Name It and Frame It" that dealt specifically with religious diploma mills. It is unfortunately out of print now, but it addressed this issue in much greater detail. Perhaps Steve will pop in and further comment on this issue.
     
  19. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    Hi, Russell. Please don't think that I'm trying to be obnoxious by pursuing this. I just find it interesting.

    Have the government or the accreditors ever tried to dictate theology? I find that idea bizarre, let alone totally unconstitutional. The US Department of Education requiring all Christian theology programs to be monophysite? Sacramento requiring all Christian schools in California to teach traducianism? Do WASC's accreditation standards demand Pelagianism or Augustinianism?

    If that's the fear, I say relax. It's never happened and probably never will.

    The problems arise when religious groups start engaging in activities that are not directly a part of their religious practice, like running a university, and when they decide that their doctrine justifies them in breaking the laws that normally govern that activity.

    The problem is not their belief per se, but the actions that they say the belief compels them to perform.

    As I tried to suggest in my last post, if a religious group sets up a school to train prospective clergy in the doctrines of their church, I am inclined to take a laissez faire approach. So are the courts.

    But even here it can get tricky in the problem cases. If an Islamic madrasah is teaching the theology of jihad against the infidel, then its religious doctrine may represent a danger to the wider community. If part of a church's practice is human sacrifice, then I have a problem, even if all the victims are willing.

    But if a seminary preparing candidates for the ministry wants to exclude homosexuals, I think that they legally can. I don't like it one bit, but they are probably legally within their constitutional rights.

    (This whole thread is really about homosexuals, isn't it?)

    But if a church wants to run a general university that offers standard academic degrees in secular subjects, then they may have a problem with the civil rights laws that apply to every other university of that sort.

    It's not the end of the world. The chosen can still remain floating on a cloud. That's because they needn't change their basic theology. They just can't discriminate in admissions. But think about it, how many gay applicants are going to be knocking down the doors to get into a school that teaches that they are shit?

    San Jose Christian College is a candidate with WASC and has (perhaps still does) had a webpage telling gays and others such as devotees of witchcraft that SJCC is not an appropriate school for them and that they probably should apply elsewhere. I expect that's legal, though it's walking the edge. Well, if conservative Christian colleges that are not even seminaries can get away with that, then what more do they want?

    This whole thing is really just a symbolic knee-jerk issue in my opinion. Something that basically serves to highlight one of America's irrational little obsessions.
     
  20. levicoff

    levicoff Guest

    Oh why, oh why, can't I just drive a truck in peace? [​IMG]

    Okay, but first a background check - not for my jollies, but because I post so infrequently these days that some newbies may not be familiar with me. (Even though they should be. [​IMG]) Both of my graduate degrees are in church-state issues (as were my thesis, dissertation, and two of my books). Before choosing to chuck away the wacky world of higher education and become a trucker (really), I taught practical theology (including law and counseling) at both an RA/ATS seminary and RA/AABC Bible college for six years. And to top it off, I am openly gay (and yes, the schools know it). Go figure . . .

    That said, I think that Bill Dayson's reply, just preceding mine as I compose this, is right on. But here's the technical background, of which I have not seen mention thus far . . .

    Everything, as you may remember, is based on the religion clauses in the First Amendment. All governmental laws, legislation, administrative procedures and policies, and court decisions. But there are two religion clauses: the Establishmet Clause and the Free Exercise Clause, and courts have to consistently apply a "balancing test" between the two.

    Therefore, it's easy to say that we don't want our tax dollars used to support people who want to go to, say, a Bible college or seminary (an expression of the Establishment Clause). But they, in turn can say that to leave them out while we support people who want to study math or science is discriminatory (the Free Exercise Clause). Obviously, the challenge is to strike an appropriate balance. This doctrine, known as "benevolent neutrality," is the same with accreditation.

    The U.S. Supreme Court articulated this "balancing test" best in Everson v. Board of Education, 300 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1947): " Neither a state nor the federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or nonattendance . . . Neitehr a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affaiors of any religious organization or groups and vice versa."

    Thus, one might argue that Liberty U. or the Moody Bible Institute (which is, indeed, RA) should not be accredited because they are "pervasively sectarian" (a phrase used in the BJU case). Yet someone else might argue that to deny them RA status would be to discriminate against religion. The law, ultimately, favors accommodation in this case.

    That's not to say that the regionals do not occasionally try to dictate policies that are against the "sincerely held religious beliefs" (again, a legal phrase) of a pervasively sectarian school. The case of the Middle States Association against Westminster Seminary over the gender make-up of their Board of Trustees a few years back is a good example. But remember that the regionals are not government entities, they are private associations. My take is that MSA did have the right to make such a value judgment, at least legally, but we may never know - the case never went to court because Westminster ultimately kissed MSA's butt and gave in.

    So, should the accreditors have the right to dictate doctrine to a school? Of course not, nor has anyone suggested it. But what about their right to dictate neutral policies? For the answer to that, we look to the 1990 "peyote case" heard by the Supreme Court (for the die-hards, it was Emoloyment Division, Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872), which summarizes current law: If a governmental entity establishes a law that is neutral in principle but happens to discriminate against religious practice as a side effect, tough noogies.

    Now, apply that to accreditation: If an RA establishes a policy that says, for example, that a school's board of trustees must include both men and women, yet the school is against it because they believe that women should be in the kitchen and the bedroom, tough noogies. Or if a state has a law prohibiting discriminating against gays and a Fundie school still discriminates against them, ditto.

    That said, however, a state is not likely to withhold funding, nor an accreditor withhold recognition, to say, a school that is sexist and homophobic. Why? Because it would offend too strong a constituency. In other words, you have to balance out the law with popular opinion - a reality check of the big picture. (Also remember, in terms of the gay issue, that gays and lesbians are not a "protected class," as are women and minorities.)

    So, do I have a problem with the notion that Liberty, Moody, et al. are RA? Not at all. Nor to I have a problem with the notion that Mararishi I.U. (or whatever they're calling themselves these days) is RA, even though I think they're a bunch of loonie tunes. Nor would I have a problem with the notion of BJU being RA, althuogh that is unlikely to happen. (Remember, the legal issue at BJU was discrimination against minorities. Wrong? Of course. But no different than a Catholic seminary limiting its program to men. And the legal issues at BJU never addressed accreditation, just tax exemption.)

    Remember, in the case of higher education, the financial benefit does not go directly to the school, it goes to the students, and it's the students that choose where they want to receive their education. To allow federal or other funding for math and science but not religion would be discriminatory; allowing it is not an endorsement, it's merely an accommodation.

    End of lesson. Thank you, thank you very much . . .
     

Share This Page