another reason for TRACS?

If Russell does not like what I say or how I say it, he is, of course, entitled to his opinion and to the expression of it. Since he is a Pastor, I must, of, course, give him honor. I do not, however, feel any inclination to participate further in a thread where my ethics and professional identity are impugned because I used the word "s---." To both Bills, DG1, and Levicoff, thank you for your interesting and informative posts. I learned a lot from what you had to say. To North, I have appreciated your input in many of the discussions on this site.

The humble Carpathian peasant is now going to shine his boots. Successfully.

A revedere,

Janko

 

Several Comments

1. I regret this thread deviated from its original focus on TRACS. For that I apologize!

2. My concern regarding the use of language is not a personal issue with Uncle Janko or Steve Levicoff. As human beings, which I take all involved in this particular thread to be, we each have the "right" to use whatever language we choose. Or so it is said.

3. It is a much broader concern that moves beyond the realm of religion and into the arena of an educated people. Perhaps it is an issue of interpersonal ethics.

Why do educated people feel the need to use off-color language in a public arena?

1) Does it add validity to one's position? NO!
2) Does it add credibility to one's argument? NO!
3) Does it illuminate the issue? NO!
4) Does it alter the position of the opponent? NO!

It is fundamentally the behavior of an adolescent, who, in using off-color language amongst his peers, perceives that he has achieved some level of credibility or legitimacy. Much like a fourteen year old boy who smokes a cigarette, thinking that he is now a big boy--while the big boys (adults) look on with patronizing humor, cognizant of the fact that he will one day grow up.

Or, at least this is the normal process of maturity.

 

Hi Steve. I was hoping that this thread would stimulate you to come and participate. (Oh jeez... I'm surely headed for the lake of fire now...)

The only beef I would have with ATS is that they only accredit Christian and Jewish schools. (As far as I know the latter is only theoretical, and no Jewish schools are currently accredited by ATS.)

But a specialized accreditor does have to have a limited scope. The ABA doesn't accredit music schools, nor does NASAD consider computer science programs. Somebody's inevitably gonna get left out.

So, can the government get away with recognizing a religious accreditor that picks and chooses among the faiths and denominations that it will consider? Or if the government is to maintain religion-neutrality, would it have to restrict itself to recognizing only those accreditors (like the regional accreditors) that are willing to accredit *any* otherwise worthy religion program?

This isn't simply academic. Here in the San Francisco bay area we have the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, which is a consortium of quite a number of separate seminaries from a whole assortment of denominations that pool together to operate a common theological library and a graduate school offering their more academic (as opposed to pre-clergy) programs.

Several of the GTU member seminaries are not regionally accredited, but they are accredited by ATS, which in these cases represents their institutional accreditor.

Then there is the Institute of Buddhist Studies. This is the national seminary of the Buddhist Church of America (BCA), the American branch of Japanese Jodo Shinshu (true pure land) Buddhism.

Like several of the other GTU members, IBS might have problems with the regional accreditors due to its tiny enrollment, limited financial resources etc. But unlike them, it has no ATS to take them under its protective wing.

Which leaves IBS CA-approved, and we have all seen how CA-approval is received in places like Degreeinfo. Certainly the response to CA-approval differs dramatically from that accorded ATS.

This despite the fact that IBS is actually rather distinguished. They co-sponsor conferences with Stanford's Center for Buddhist Studies, they provided a past holder of the Numata Professorship at Harvard, they publish their own journal ('Pacific World') etc. Not bad for a school with only a few dozen students.

(Luckily, they have reached a British-style "validation" arrangement with GTU, where the latter school actually grants some of their degrees for them.)

 

You can't get Shinola these days. No longer sold. So you're stuck with that other stuff (which cannot be named).

 

I've followed this post with great interest. I have no opinion on TRACS. And honestly, much of the theological and constitutional dialog in this thread is simply out of my league.

I have however, been following Patrick Henry College's appeal, for pre-accreditation, to American Academy for Liberal Education. Which is now related to this thread.

Previously discussed here:

http://www.degreeinfo.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=3817&perpage=30&pagenumber=1

PHC offers two degree programs, a Bachelor of Arts degree in Government and a Bachelor of Arts degree in Classical Liberal Arts.

AALE initially denied pre-accreditation to PHC not because its programs are sub par, but because PHC teaches creationism and because the AALE committee felt that PHC's "Statement of Biblical Worldview" would restrict curriculum and the acquisition of basic knowledge.

According to their new catalog, PHC has now applied for TRACS accreditation. I wonder if they would have bothered with TRACS had they achieved AALE accreditation. Additionally, according to the catalog, PHC intends to apply for regional accreditation this year.

"Patrick Henry College made timely progress through the initial application for pre-accreditation
status with the American Academy for Liberal Education (AALE) but was
denied over faith-based issues found in the College’s Statement of Biblical Worldview.
PHC had applied with AALE to accredit its Christian liberal arts program because it
understood that the Academy would be faithful to the great traditions of Western
Civilization, and because AALE is a recognized accrediting agency by the United States
Department of Education. An appeal of their denial is pending.

The College has made the initial application with the Transnational Association of
Christian Colleges and Schools (TRACS). TRACS is recognized as a national
institutional accrediting agency by the United States Department of Education and is a
member of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation. TRACS was established in
1979 with the purpose of promoting the welfare, interests, and development of quality
Christian post-secondary institutions whose missions is characterized by a distinctively
Christian orientation.

The College also intends to make application with a regional accreditor, the Southern
Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS), once there is sufficient operating history to
fulfill their requirements for candidacy. Initial application is anticipated in the fall of
2002. SACS is the United States Department of Education recognized accreditor for
eleven states including Virginia."

http://www.phc.edu/admissions/catalog/PHCCatalog2002-2003.pdf

 

Re: Several Comments

Russell, you make a strong argument for my use of foul language since I so enjoy acting immaturely. I'll have to contemplate further on this before deciding which way is more humorous though.

 

Sorry folks.

I was just interested in discussing TRACS: its perceived function as an accreditor of conservative theology, the possible, but seemingly unlikely, detrimental effect of that on curriculum within evangelicalism , and the potential results of a TRACS school 'Research Paper Guide' on research!

The thread took different turns and no apologies are necessary to me for those turns. But if some bros could shake I'd feel better. Thanks to the participants, sorry feathers were ruffled.

 

For Bill G.

Bill,

I have carefully re-read everything in this thread, and I apologize for not reading your post more carefully before responding. (“Read in haste, repent in leisure?”)

You are correct. It would indeed be unrealistic for a school not to allow you to cite a non-evangelical source in a paper. As far as basing the thrust of your paper on a source the school considers out-of-bounds, well, that is another matter.

By the way, for a paper I am working on now I am utilizing the following four decidedly non-evangelical sources from my local library:

Alley, Robert S., Revolt Against the Faithful.

Buttrick, George, Christian Fact and Modern Doubt.

Pike, James A., If This Be Heresy.

Spong, John Shelby, A New Christianity for a New World: Why Traditional Faith is Dying and How a New Faith is Being Born.

Heretics all, but I anticipate no trouble whatsoever from merely citing them without endorsing them in my paper.

However, if I was to make (ex-) Bishop Spong’s theology (“God as a being doesn’t exist, but we are God”) the core of my position in a class on Theology Proper, I would be directly in opposition to the doctrinal position of the school, as well as my own denomination. I would not anticipate wonderful results, and since I picked the school in large part for its doctrinal position, I don’t think I would deserve wonderful results.

I hope you are able to work things out with ACCS for your D.Min. research, but at least it sounds like you are on a good road for your Doctor of Theology.

Dave

 

TRACS

Levicoff: "TRACS was, and still is, a back door to accreditation, historically claiming that the other accreditors would not recognize their programs. In fact, the others would always have recognized those programs if the programs were up to par."

Dr. Levicoff,

I know you have had praise for Temple Baptist Seminary and Southern Evangelical Seminary in the past. Since they have both obtained TRACS accreditation rather recently (both I believe after your book on TRACS), does this change your negative opinion of TRACS? Does this change your positive opinion of the two above schools?

 

Re: TRACS

I obviously have a horse in this race but.....
Levicoff's book is as he acknowledges very dated (decade old). I think Levicoff had an effect on TRACS (although someone once scolded me and told me that was nonsense). I say this with a great deal of respect for the work Steve has done but he is not very quick to change his opinion and once formed it sticks regardless of new information.

My personal opinion is that TRACS is getting stronger as a conservative Christian accreditor. A few years ago in the mid nineties it was commended by the US Dept of Ed as I recall for it's methodology when it came up for review. We are seeing some increased acceptance of TRACS (eg Univ of OK or OK State??). I doubt ATS will be very generous any time soon but then they have a horse in the race and as someone suggested may be a little nervous that some of their conservative schools could loose interest in ATS. ATS covers a broad range of conservative to very liberal schools and is not very innovative.

North

 

I shake hands by proxy with Uncle Janko, and all others whose opinions/positions are wrong! <grin>

 

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

Thanks Russell! Too bad you still cannot see Arminianism as a heresy, but I suppose we are not all predestined to be good theologians! (hee, hee).

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

 

If I am not predestined to be a good theologian, then it really isn't my fault is it? Since none of us have a choice in the matter of our eternal destiny (if indeed the position of my Reformed brother is correct), I cannot be held liable for my weak theological position.

So don't offend a weaker brother with your superior theological liberty. <big grin>

 

Re: For Bill G.

 

========================================
But neither can I be liable for offending you as that too was destined!

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

 

Re: TRACS

No and no, in that order.

I should make it clear: I have no particular hard-on against TRACS. (I could have phrased that differently, but after Russell's kvetching about off-color language - none of which I used previously in this thread - I couldn't resist. Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha! But I digress...)

TRACS has significantly improved its standards. I take some very minor credit for that, since my book hung up their DoEd reapproval for almost two years, but the improvement came within TRACS itself, specifically after J. Gordon Henry (their first executive director) retired and the boys from Liberty took over. They have obviously improved to the degree that they are now approved by both DoEd and CHEA, which puts them in the same league as AABC and ATS in terms of recognition.

Nonetheless, if TRACS started out as a Yugo, they have successfully become a Chevy. Regional accreditation is still the Cadillac as an accreditation standard, to the extent that schools such as the oft-discussed TESC will not accept transfer credit from a school that has TRACS but not regional accreditation, just as they will not accept transfer credit from a school that has AABC but not regional accreditation.

Do I think any less of Tennessee Temple or Southern Evangelical? Not at all. TTU&S is still one of the three Cadillac schools for old-time Fundamentalists (the others are Bob Jones and Pensaciola Christian), and you can't ask for better credentials at SES than the fact that it was started by Norman Geisler, one of today's premier evidential apologists. I see SES as meeting the same market, if you will, as Knox Theological Seminary (the one started by D. James Kennedy), a credible school in the South, which has had a shortage of such schools in the past.

Okay, key change. Over to Bill Dayson's comments . . .

I think it's important to differentiate the schools in the Graduate Theological Union from those who would become accredited by TRACS. It is highly unlikely that a TRACS-accredited school would even want to join the GTU since evangelical institutions tend to separate from mainline denominations (to the extent that many of them consider ecumenism a dirty word - gee, I wonder if Russell does . . .).

Theological seperatism is practiced most stringely by the Fundy schools (as well as by Fundy churches, the pastors of which will generally not affiliate with local ministerial associations). Other evangelical schools, especially those that are accredited by ATS, will enjoy a collegial affiliation with certain associations - Dispensationalists won't worship with Pentecostals, but they will associate for academic reasons.

While ATS may be open to Jewish schools, there are, indeed, none (to my knowledge). But this is not necessarily a matter of discrimination; it's more a matter of Jewish theological schools and seminaries being set up differently than Protestant schools. ATS recognizes the M.Div. as the first professional degree for pastors; most Jewish seminaries offer a 5-year Master of Arts for the preparation of rabbis. Thus, ATS accreditation is not even an issue for most Jewish schools of theology, for whom regional accreditation alone is the primary standard.

Bill also raises an interesting issue with regard to Buddhist schools. Here in the Philadelphia area, we recently saw the opening of a Buddhist seminary that will be granting both academic and professional master's degrees. Unlike California, Pennsylvania is a very tight-assed (yes, that was for Russell, too) state with regard to the licensure of degree-granting programs. And like the Institute of Buddhist Studies, it is unlikely that the new seminary will apply for, let alone receive, regional accreditation due to its small size (especially in its first years of operation). However - and not because I live here - I trust Pennsylvania's licensure standards more than I trust California's historic lack of tight licensure standards, especially when it comes to ongoing monitoring of institutional operations (which, of course, does not include a review of the school's doctrinal positions or what they specifically teach - that would be uinappropriate under the First Amendment). The same principles, of course, may be applied to Muslim or Hindu schools of theology, as well as any schools of theology that are non-theistic in their orientation.

So, the bottom line on TRACS is quite simple: Like AABC or any other non-regional accreditor, a person with a TRACS-accredited degree will not have the same options open to him or her as a person with a regionally accredited degree. Has TRACS improved since I wrote When the TRACS Stop Short? Absolutely. Would I recommend a school that is accredite by TRACS? As a general rule, nope.

Finally, in closing . . .

A response to Uncle Janko's question, "I wonder if ATS really escapes the establishment question. Even though it is not pervasively Christian, it is by definition religious as opposed to non-religious. Could there be a problem still?"

Again, no. What we are ultimately looking at is the delicate balancing act between the Establishment Clause and the Fre Exercise Clause. If we deny ATS DoEd approval, we end up showing preference to non-religion over religion, a violation of the Everson v. Board of Education principles. By allowing DoEd approval of ATS, we are not endorsing, we are simply accommodating.

A strange balancing act? Of course, but it is preferable to demonstrating hostility to a religious accreditor merely because they are a religious accreditor. You could not see the government approve, say, a Baptist accreditor while refusing to recognize a Methodist accreditor. But we do not see that at all in the case of ATS, which crosses denominational lines. Consistently, then, if an accreditor popped up that was the antithesis to TRACS - say, one that buys into evolutionary creationism as opposed to God doing His thing in a literal seven days - and if they met the same academic, professional, and financial standards as TRACS, DoEd would, by nature have to approve them as they approved TRACS.

 

Re: Re: TRACS

The purpose of my Buddhist example was to address this point.

While ATS certainly can't be described as being a Baptist or a Methodist accreditor, it CAN be characterized as a Christian accreditor. (Perhaps with Jewish potential, but that's as far as it goes.)

In the GTU consortium you find several schools, all of which seem to be operating at a similar academic standard. The Christians among them have ATS (and hence Department of Education recognized) accreditation. The Buddhists have to make do with CA-approval. The only reason for this inequity that I can see is that the IBS is not derived from the Judeo-Christian heritage, hence it falls outside the scope of what ATS is willing to consider.

So we are confronted with something very like what you say we can't see the government do.

 

Re: TRACS

I think we should note that, like the rabbinical schools, the Institute of Buddhist Studies most likely does not fit the degree models laid down by ATS (such as the M.Div. as a first professional degree).

My concern, however, is that if IBS as truly established and reputable (and has the appropriate resources), they do not have to settle for California approval. Granted, ATS would not be functional for them, but why do they not go for regional accreditation, which would remove any potential credibility stigma? Surely the regionals will not discriminate on the basis of religion (exemplified by the RA status of the former Maharishi International University, now the Maharishi University of Management).

 

Re: Re: TRACS

As I said, adolescence in action!

 

Hang in there, Russell. I applaud your suggestion of a higher standard of behavior here on the board.

Hope to talk more with you, Bill, and Uncle soon. I am leaving for Virginia shortly, so I will have to re-join the discussion at a later date.

Dave <><