another reason for TRACS?

I believe this school was begun with the help of my old pastor Tim La Haye in 1970: www.christianheritage.edu/academics/accreditation

I didn't realize it had both RA and TRACS accreditation. What is interesting is that the school seems to wish to emphasize the latter as much or more as the former saying that TRACS assures its moral, philosophical, and theological standards.

So, here seems to be a second motive to acquire TRACS accreditation. Not just is TRACS an option for some Christian schools to acquire national accreditation , even if they cannot attain the gold of regional accreditation ; TRACS in some cases may additionally be sought to guaranty a school's religious conservativism which may be deemed essential to its very purpose and existence.

In the eyes of some , perhaps , *there* is the gold.

 

Good insight, Bill.

 

I wonder if the US Dept. of Education recognition of TRACS would stand a court challenge.

On one hand, the US extends its recognition directly to TRACS, and indirectly to all the schools that TRACS accredits.

But on the other hand, TRACS makes adherence to a rather hard-line form of Protestant Christianity a condition of accreditation.

Seeing as how particular colleges can be denied federal recognition on the basis of their theology, one could argue that federal recognition of TRACS represents an unconstitutional establishment of religion.

Another legal theory from which to challenge the recognition of TRACS might be civil rights law. TRACS not only permits, but apparently requires the schools that it accredits to restrict student enrollment and faculty hiring only to Christians who are willing to sign doctrinal oaths. This certainly looks like descrimination on the basis of religious creed.

If the schools that practice this argue that they are religious bodies and that their actions are constitutionally protected, their federal recognition and funding might become problematic.

 

Re: Re: another reason for TRACS?

 

Here's a test for improper church-state involvement.

If the USDE recognized any and every "accrediting" body, regardless of how non-wonderful, simply because it claimed a religious character, while refusing recognition to similarly non-wonderful "accrediting" bodies which were nominally secular, then there might be an establishment problem. As it is, the question is not how inclusive or exclusive TRACS, ATS, or the yeshiva accreditor happen to be in matters of theology, but whether or not they meet some quality criteria established by the USDE. Or, it's not holy vs. unholy, so to speak, but shit vs. shinola.

If the USDE were--on theological grounds--to say that they would recognize the strictly evangelical TRACS but refuse to recognize the broad-spectrum ATS (because inclusiveness is good and confessionalism bad, let us say), then there would be a problem, since it is no business of the federal guvmint to pass on questions of religion. Similarly, if the feds refused recognition to TRACS--purely on the theological ground that they were not part of ATS by virtue of rejecting ATS' theological inclusivity--then the guvmint would, in effect, make ATS into an establishment of religion by delegitimizing its competitor.

I am about as strict as anyone on the separation issue, and that is one of many issues that explains my own religious affiliation. I do not see a genuine establishment problem here, however.

 

Bill: "Not just is TRACS an option for some Christian schools to acquire national accreditation , even if they cannot attain the gold of regional accreditation ; TRACS in some cases may additionally be sought to guaranty a school's religious conservativism which may be deemed essential to its very purpose and existence."

Bill,

I agree. Perhaps this explains Tennessee Temple University's switch from AABC to TRACS. When Temple Baptist Seminary joined TRACS, Tennessee Temple University didn't have to follow, as they are technically separate institutions, but they went along. I would guess we will see more of the very conservative AABC schools jump ship over the next few years, for the reasoning you describe.

I also think this may be why Liberty University has kept TRACS accreditation, even though they renewed their regional accreditation by restructuring their debt problem.

Dave

 

[ I would guess we will see more of the very conservative AABC schools jump ship over the next few years, for the reasoning you describe.

IDave [/B][/QUOTE]

=======================================


That may be. I'd like to clarify a point and then ask a question.


Clarification: TRACS ,and its accredited schools, as hard as this may be to grasp, actually can be fairly open in creedal requirements within the broader evangelical spectrum. Here both charismatics and cessationists are welcome ; both Arminians and Calvinists ; both egalitarians and hierarchicalists. These diverse groups , of course, find the uniquenesses of their own positions to be of much importance, though such "fine tuning" may seem extreme to others. Nevertheless, TRACS schools are conservative in general theologically and this does distinguish them from some others. But here's the rub:

I happen to know of a class in Theology offered at the *doctoral* level by a TRACS school. This class seems to be subject to the school's guidelines for writing research papers which guidelines state,

"The student should use mainline evangelical sources
that uphold historical Christianity."

But such a restriction particularly at the grad level of theological education does not seem to me to be one that would encourage theological maturity. Even at TTS we read more liberal works!! At the very conservative Western Seminary (ATS/RA) we regulary read nonconservative material in theology classes. In my UZ dissertation I will use Hartshorne, Cobb and other nonevangelicals as they have relevance to my issues. The Christian is urged to be ready with the answers, not to be rigorous in avoiding the questions! So, I have a..

Question: Therefore, I wonder if a TRACS conservative creedal requisite could be used, or misconstrued, to influence a school's curricula detrimentally. Could the zeal to teach conservatism exclusively dampen valuable learning? What I hope is that I am applying the above guidelines too stringently or that this example of one school is not typical of the other TRACS accredited institutions in general. Any answers?

 

Thank you, Uncle Janko, for your academic use of the English language. Very professional.

 

I'm not an academic.

 

or a professional

 

or a wowser

 

===================================

But...but Uncle Janko, are you not the very one who condemned our favorite Indiana spectacle because by the NAPSNC connection it chose, it stands guilty in your eyes of associating with "swingers"? So are you verily not a "wowser"?

But, if not an Aussie "wowser" you be, you're nevertheless a "wow" with me! (ha!)

For you speak with such reason,

And I speak with such rhyme,

And Russell , best of all, with such religion! , "pausato ten glossan apo kakou."
(1 pet 3).

Esteem to you both,

===================================

 

Sawubona, Bill!

Lookit, I don't really care what TTS gets associated with. I just find their "holier than thou" stuff a little bit funny, considering the institutional ethics of the place. Do I actually think TTS condones McIlvenna? No, not for an instant. It would be bad for business (among their target audience) if they did.

Then again, as far as I know, McIlvenna doesn't waltz about claiming to be somebody great in the world of evangelicalism. What he does with Nipsnick as a come-on (if anything at all) I don't know. Or as a come-hither.

Nipsnick can go ahead and accredit anybody they want to. If they get their act together enough to get USDE/CHEA recognition, then more power to them.

Of course, as Aeschylus says, "we ought not rear a lion cub within the state / for when it's grown we must obey whatever it commands."

 

I'm not an attorney, and what I am going to say will probably make people trained in constitutional law gnash their teeth.

But as I understand it, the tests used by the Supreme Court in deciding establishment issues have evolved over time and are set out perhaps most clearly in chief justice Burger's 1971 opinion in Lemon v. Kurtzman. They are sometimes referred to as the "Lemon test".

In a nutshell, there are two considerations. First, was the law or enactment under challenge originally created with a religious purpose, to foster or to hinder religion? Or did it have a secular purpose? The former is a violation of the establishment clause, the latter isn't. I think that the Department of Education recognition pretty clearly passes this test. One could probably succeed in arguing that their recognition of accreditors has a secular purpose.

And secondly, does the legislation or enactment result in "excessive government entanglement" with religion? This is where there might be a challenge. It would have to be argued that the government recognition has the indirect effect of granting rights and privileges to adherents of one religious group that are denied to another alternative religious group that doesn't happen to have a recognized sectarian accreditor available.

Careful! Russell's reading this!

My response to your point is that if TRACS smears together theological and academic considerations in developing its accreditation criteria, any government recognition of the results of applying those criteria would (arguably) represent just the sort of "entanglement" that would raise constitutional issues.

Not only is it no business of the government's, they are constitutionally forbidden from doing it. But by delegating the decision making in the legal recognition of higher education institutions to a body that explicitly and proudly applies theological criteria, the government is doing exactly that.

Imagine two colleges which both have equal academics, but neither qualifies for RA as things currently stand. Now imagine that one of them is Hindu and that its students and staff largely worship Vishnu and Krishna. The other is Baptist and insists that all students and staff accept Jesus Christ as their personal lord and savior. The Hindus would be dismissed with the back of TRACS' (and AABC's, and ATS' and AARTS') hand. The other could be embraced by all but AARTS. On the basis of that recognition, the US government will hire graduates of the latter school, while rejecting the former. Degreeinfo will denounce the Hindu graduates for attending a state-approved school and perhaps even try to get them fired.

One possible solution would be for the government to refuse recognition to any pervasively sectarian religious accreditor. That applies equally to AABC, TRACS, ATS or AARTS. If the schools that receive this accreditation need government recognition, they could obtain that through one of the accreditors that employ academic criteria without mixing them with theological ones. I mean, both Maharishi University and Dallas Theological Seminary coexist within RA.

Obviously this doesn't mean that ATS, AARTS or TRACS need disappear. They could still operate as unrecognized professional accreditors, testifying to a school's doctrinal adherence if they found that necessary. As Bill Grover suggested in his first post, that might be very important to some people (and to some denominations).

The American Chemical Society accredits university chemistry departments very happily without Department of Education recognition. ACS accreditation is very important to chemists, but the professional society feels no need to involve the government in its activities. Perhaps religious accreditors could do the same thing.

 

Points well taken, Bill Dayson. I'm no lawyer either, and I can't maintain an extended discussion on constitutionality. If de-recognition of everybody left a level playing-field, and degrees/credits from religious schools were accepted by employers/other schools because it was universally understood that absence of USDE recognition was for establishment clause reasons and was no (necessary) reflection on the caliber of the derecognized institutions, then why not?
On the other hand, there's theoretically no reason why an additional accreditor which would accomodate a Hindu or Muslim tertiary institution could not be created and gain recognition from USDE. Is ATS specifically Christian? Who accredits HUC-JIR or JTS?

 

Bill of the Zulus:
I'm not fighting with anybody, not here anyway.
The Humble Carpathian Peasant

 

I'm glad!

 

But Uncle Janko, according to your profile you are a country preacher. As such, you are a professional. As a professional who also has an interest in distance learning [a pedagogy within academe], you are somewhat of a tripartite being.

Country Preacher
Professional
Academic

A refresher course in business ethics would reveal that the professional is to focus on vocabulary and dialogue which is constructive, pleasant and appealing.

Such a course in interpersonal communication would reveal that the academic should pursue the same.

However, since, according to many within the professions and academe, all things are relative, it may well be debatable what constitutes acceptable norms of speech from one person to the next.

But the Country Preacher , his ethics are absolute, eternally etched within the sacred text. "May the words of my mouth...be acceptable in your sight."

***Christian Ethics 101
***Class 1

 

Amen Russell. Something I am constantly trying to remind myself, especially the part that mentions 'the meditations of my heart'.

IHS,

North