American Institute of Holistic Theology (AIHT)

Be as imperfect as you like. But then prepared to be called out on it.

 

I don't think anyone is pleading for a category of "mill."

But unless there is a viable accreditation option for non-Christian/non-Orthodox Jewish religious schools then I think this is just the way it needs to be.

I firmly believe you should be able to create a school focused on ultra-liberal Christianity, Wicca, Buddhism, whatever religious flavor you like. But the options for those schools are slim.

If you aren't fully DL then DEAC is likely not going to work for you. Unless your programs are vocational the other National Accreditors won't be of use. If you are in New York then you can go to the Board of Regents.

We have faith based accreditors. But TRACS or ABHE would never accredit a school that was very religiously liberal or that is non-Christian. The two accreditors focusing on Jewish schools only accredit Orthodox (around 10% of the Jewish population in the U.S.) schools.

So liberal Jewish schools all went RA. None are ATS. None have any faith based accreditation. Just straight RA. There is one Muslim school in the U.S. They went RA.

RA is a great option for schools that can afford to not only attain the accreditation but who will see enough students pass through their doors to maintain accreditation.

We have a litany of accreditors focused on occupational associate degrees. We have multiple accreditors for Christian colleges. But for religious groups that would term themselves "interfaith" or on the liberal edges of established religions there are no options other than RA which is the most expensive option.

If there was an accreditor that presented a reasonable path I think we'd see schools take it. I think that we'd see accredited schools competing with the likes of Sedona. Or, perhaps, we'd see schools like Sedona stepping up their game. Some would certainly step up. Others would not. But we'd have a clear line in the sand.

Until that happens schools will operate under religious exemption and not even pretend to be working toward accreditation. Their degrees, even if they were accredited, would still be useless in the broader world of academia. Their degrees, even if accredited, would offer almost no utility in the job market. Their impact, even if they were accredited, in our society is minimal.

What I find interesting is just how upset some people get about these folks, though. As if it impacts their life. It doesn't. RAM PhD has stated numerous times in conversations like this how it's insulting to "real" PhDs that someone is claiming to be a PhD despite having undergone a program that isn't academically up to snuff. Who cares? If they aren't competing with you for a job or using their degree fraudulently then I fail to see why it would matter let alone why one would get all huffy about it.

There are countries in the world where becoming a physician is easier than others. There are countries where physicians, once graduated, don't have access to our technology. Yet I've never seen a U.S. physician seething over the fact that someone wears a white lab coat and calls himself "Doctor" in a third world country where the medical training is not up to U.S. standards. Yes, that third world doctor might never be licensed to practice in the U.S. And yeah, there are countries where I'd hate to be if I need medical attention. But, within the context of that nation, those doctors are trained up to spec. The same can be said of religious training. There are faith groups that require PhDs. There are faith groups that license teenagers to preach. But even if you have a PhD from one school the theological differences between it and other schools can render that degree functionally worthless.

We crafted a system where a conservative Christian school has numerous pathways to accreditation. And a liberal Christian school has only one (and the most expensive and difficult path at that). Level the playing field or don't complain when schools decide not to play in a league.

 

I guess I'm just having trouble getting as worked up about it as you.

 

Considering the jab was directed at me and not you I'm sure why you would find that surprising.

 

I never said I was surprised.

 

Sorry I missed this update, I attended catholic seminary about 30 years ago and there was no degree requirement back then but things might have changed now.

It makes sense, few people drop from catholic seminary and then left in the cold with training that is non transferable in the real world. With an accredited Bachelors you can at least go and get an MBA if you need to incorporate to the business world later in life.

 

Most interfaith programs are not PhD or degree programs, few grant degrees but most don't. They are typically 2 to 3 year programs. A typical program below:
Interfaith Seminary, Interfaith Ministry Curriculum - New York, globally over webinars | One Spirit Learning Alliance

Typically interfaith ministers work as Chaplains in hospitals in particular in multicultural urban areas that have people from multiple faiths. Also, many non religious people hire their services as wedding officiants or pastoral counselors.

No need to be upset with interfaith as most of our seminaries do not compete with people from this forum with their RA PhDs that took years to complete. There are some mills that offer interfaith PhDs but most churches and hospitals hire from local seminaries or known places and not mickey mouse internet schools so online PhDs from place like Sedona most likely would not make it to become a Chaplain.

 

This was my point with an MDiv of NationsU, few people here come and trash anything that is not at least NA but for practical purposes, NAtionsU has almost the same value as a good non accredited bible college.
Most liberal Christian denominations in Canada only require 1 or 2 years of bible college to become a minister. This can be unaccredited but from a credible school. Traditional denominations need at least a TRACS accredited school so NationsU wouldn't make it there neither to become a professor at a college or University.
The only difference is that one would feel proud that his or her school is accredited so one could proudly display the degree in a wall without fear from being trashed from people like in this forum.
By the way, the internet is full of haters that trash ordained ministers with unaccredited degrees, it seems to be an ongoing thing that comes from "spiritual" people that hates unaccredited religious education.

 

But they are using the "degree" fraudulently, whenever they flash the wallet-card, for whatever reason. It's just as fake as a phony police badge, a bogus passport or that fake driver's licence that got me into bars at 17, back in 1960. Some kinds of fraud may be "fraudier" than others (or not) but Fraud is Fraud.

J.

 

This is not my post but I will challenge you. Post the regulation that states that I cannot use a religious exempted degree in a wallet card. Some states require you to post that it is an unaccredited degree but there is nothing illegal from displaying an unaccredited religious exempted degree in a business card.
If I attended Sedona and use their degree is a Business Card, I am not breaking any law. If these schools were illegal, they would have been shut down a while ago but they are still operating for a reason, there is nothing illegal in their operations.
The fact that you don't like them does not make them a fraud. If I were to hire a pastoral counselor with a PhD from Sedona, can I sue the person for misrepresentation? I were to hire a wedding officiant with a PhD from Sedona, can I sue him or her for the same reason?

 

In the world, a PhD has a certain specific meaning. It is a symbol of scholarship at a very high level. To publicly claim a PhD when it is not a true, either because I printed the diploma on my home printer, bought the paper from an outright mill or from some "substandard" school, is a lie and quite possibly a crime.

 

For the specific case of the US, I were to hold a PhD from the American Institute of Holistic Theology (AIHT) and use it to provide pastoral counseling, would this be considered a crime?

 

Yes, depending on the state. I believe Indiana, for instance, has specific provisions against any use of unaccredited doctorates. Others may also. Some states disallow use of unaccredited doctorates (of all kinds) in ANY health-care settings. That's so nobody gets called "Doctor" who shouldn't. And only about 22 states nation-wide allow such a thing as a "religious exempt" degree on their turf.

And:

(1) I agree with Kizmet totally. Using a degree such as she described is a crime, a lie - or both.
(2) I apologize about attributing the "who cares" post to RFValve. It was Neuhaus who posted it.

J.

 

Like I said - illegal in Indiana, and elsewhere. From some wiki or other - links to government sites:

"Is Oregon the only state that disallows use of unaccredited degrees? No. It is also illegal in North Dakota, see (North Dakota Department of Career and Technical Education) and New Jersey, see (Online Consumer Report Card) to use unaccredited degrees. It is illegal in Indiana, see (: BPE) to use an unaccredited doctorate. (Emphasis mine - J.) See those states’ laws for details. Many other states are considering similar laws in order to prevent fraud."

J.

 

It's also possible that it's misrepresenting your skills in the area of counseling to a client(s) who is unsophisticated in such matters. Now, to borrow an idea from another thread, I believe that a person might skirt the law (in some places) by being a "Spiritual Consultant" or something like that but when you start such things, searching for terms that suggest "counseling" without actually saying it, using some other terms, they might remain within the law but also would seem to be deliberately subverting the spirit of the law. Of course (and this is the point that I was trying to make in that thread) the fact that it is illegal or perhaps just misleading, doesn't stop people from doing it. I'm certain it happens all the time. But using such a PhD, I believe, leads people to think that you have attained a certain high level of scholarship, have acquired certain skills but this is, in fact, not true in these examples. This is the point that Jan was making and she wasn't wrong. It may be unethical in a larger sense.

 

Oh so very true. I find it beyond absurd that they try to justify their degrees in this fashion. If it was another school they would be singing another tune.

Amen

 

Some of the posts in this thread seem to me to have been confusing two different questions -

1. Is it justifiable for universities to not maintain sound academics?

2. Is it justifiable for universities to not be accredited?

In my opinion, my answer to #1 would be 'no'. If they slip too far in the academic sense, universities probably shouldn't be awarding degrees with familiar titles (like Ph.D) in established subjects (like comparative religion). These schools needn't disappear, they should just award certificates instead. Even if they are teaching new and unique subjects, they should treat those subjects with the respect that the subjects (arguably) deserve, by doing the best job with them that they possibly can. After all, the innovative university has the opportunity to become the world leader in that particular field of scholarship. They should be trying to promote their new subject in the wider academic world.

And my answer to #2 is 'maybe sometimes'. If a school has an unusual but justifiable teaching methodology that a regional accreditor won't accept, and if there is isn't any alternative accreditor, the school has the choice of abandoning its methodology or not being accredited. I'm thinking of Dharma Realm here, which back in the 1970's tried to blend Western academics and monastic-style Zen/Ch'an practice. I think that's a very justifiable methodology for teaching Buddhism, but WASC wouldn't buy it. Dharma Realm has subsequently moved away from that early vision and is now a WASC candidate. Another kind of example are the several small seminaries that are operated by particular religious denominations for the limited purpose of training their own clergy.

But I want to emphasize that even these non-accredited schools need to be credible in academic terms if they are awarding degrees. Arguing that there's a reason for them to not be accredited isn't an argument for their being academically unsound.

 

On a couple of occasions I have asked on this board what it is about some religious schools that they need to rely on the religious exemption to let them off the accreditation hook. I've never gotten what I consider to be an adequate answer. Heirophant's point about methodology is a good one, possibly the best I've heard in that regard.

 

The problem is that accreditation is the objective measure by which we determine that a school is academically sound. Without accreditation we have two options:

1. Declare that any school without accreditation is academically unsound or
2. Accept that some are academically sound and some are not

But without an objective measure we have no way of truly knowing which ones would pass the sniff test.

Prior to DEAC accrediting Nations the speculation on these boards was that NationsU would never be accredited and that they were just applying so that they could mislead students into thinking that their degrees would be accredited one day. People who signed up for their courses felt they were substandard. That they didn't compare to accredited programs.

And then NationsU became accredited. They were accredited because they were subjected to an objective review against a series of set standards. DEAC didn't rely upon the subjective musings of people on a message board to say that they were illegitimate because they used a Private Mail Box for their primary mailing address.

We can assume that schools like Sedona wouldn't pass muster because we can see the poor quality of some of their PhD graduates (who have published their dissertations on the web). But we also haven't reviewed the theses of graduates of TRACS schools against them, have we? We might think those are just as crappy.

Accreditation and academic standards are, indeed, two different issues. But we use accreditation to objectively measure academic standards. Without accreditation our informal assessments of a school are of no practical value to evaluating sound academics.

 

Two things. Religious liberty considerations might compel some schools to shun outside control; certainly, it'd be hard to FORCE state-recognized accreditation requirements upon faith-based institutions. Of course, some are abusing this reality.

Also, some communities are simply not big enough to support an accredited school, and for internal reasons wish to keep pre-ordination training in house. For example, Eastern Orthodox faith in US is divided between up to a dozen mutually recognized jurisdictions, largely on ethnic lines; these range from relatively large Greek Archdiocese to tiny Albanian Orthodox Diocese. There are four accredited seminaries in the group: St. Vlad's and St. Tikhon's (Orthodox Church in America jurisdiction, RA/ATS), Holy Cross (Greek, associated with Hellenic College, RA/ATS), and Holy Trinity in Jordanville NY (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, NYBOR). However, two groups maintain seminaries that are not accredited. These be Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the USA (St. Sophia) and American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese (Christ the King). Learning outcomes in the two are broadly similar to the big guys, but programs are tiny (St. Sophia graduates maybe half a dozen people in a good year). The jurisdictions are far too proud to turn over educating clergy to either "Russians" (broadly includes the OCA) or the "Greeks" (although there is a fair number of St. Vlad's-educated clergy in UOCUSA at least). So the schools remain, and remain unaccredited. And good for them.

(St. Sophia's counterpart in Canada, St. Andrew's College, is part of University of Manitoba. Equally tiny enrollments.)