Liberty's DBA program?

Discussion in 'Business and MBA degrees' started by dlcurious, Mar 16, 2015.

  1. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    You have a right to object. I have a right to object to the way my tax dollars are spent as well. I have the right to object to your objection. The government funds all kinds of faith based organizations. The separation of church and state does not prohibit such activities. If you want your objection to actually matter, lobby for change.
  2. potpourri

    potpourri New Member

    So if you have a problem with tax dollars being used for Liberty University you would also have to object for all funding being used for any sort of private or non-public institution to be fair across the board.

    I for one think you miss the boat. The funds are used to help the student fulfill his/her education and that student has the right to decide which school they wish to pursue for thir education. If you leave choice out of it you would be dealing with unfairness as to how you would interpret which school meets your criteria, etc.

    Think about what happened at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill with the students having them pass courses that weren't even ever taken. Is that tax dollars being used for the right purpose?

    I am proud that Liberty University receives Federal monies and they have shown that the school is good stewards with the money. They have grown substantially. Where are you? Why do you have such an objection? How are you more right?
  3. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    I didn't miss the boat at all. I agree with you and happily defend institutions like Liberty. I absolutely defend a student's right to choose, using tax dollars, to attend an institution of his/her choosing, faith based or otherwise. Perhaps you misunderstood my post(s).
  4. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    I assume this was actually directed at me since pugbelly2 has been defending Liberty.

    Actually, this is a fallacious argument based on a false dilemma. My choice is not "object to all funding used for any sort of private or non-public institution" or not object at all. My objection is more nuanced than that. I attended the University of Scranton, which is a Jesuit school, and despite its closeness to the Catholic Church routinely hired faculty and staff who were not Catholic. It was somewhat rare to find a non-Catholic in the theology department, though it did occur (we had a Rabbi working as a professor since UofS, at that time, taught Jewish Studies courses which were included in the Theology department).

    UofS, Fordham, Loyola and Georgetown do not require that its janitors be Christian or their non-theological faculty to be Catholic, so it's a completely different situation.

    Umm, no. That's the reason why UNC-Chapel Hill suffered such intense scrutiny. Were it a lesser known school, I wouldn't have been surprised if it resulted in their accreditation being in jeopardy. This, however, has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

    I am in Upstate New York. I have already explained my objection, I do not like federal funds being used to fund institutions which have discriminatory hiring practices.
  5. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member


    This is true. I also have the right to respond to your objections to defend my position when we are debating.

    The federal government doesn't fund faith based organizations. They fund certain activities by organizations which happen to be faith based. That's a huge difference. The Church of England receives public funds to do nothing other than be the Church of England. That's why it's a state sponsored church.

    Catholic Social Services received government funds to support certain programs which are generally available to the public beyond the Catholic community. It's different to fund CSS so that they can feed the hungry or provide housing to the poor. You'll also note according to this article that:

    Faith based organizations do not have carte blanche to do whatever they want with government funds. And if they are receiving public funds, they should have to play by the same rules as non-religious groups. To a certain extent, as noted above, they already are required to play by the same rules as non-religious groups.

    What's odd is that you took it upon yourself to assume that I am not already lobbying for change. Because I commented on a forum that must be exclusive of my political motivations? I actively and vocally opposed efforts to grant clergy student loan forgiveness just as I actively and vocally oppose this as well.
  6. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Let me share a story (I'm good at those).

    Back in 2008/2009, my company laid off a significant portion of the workforce. It was a sad and scary time for everyone. Even Human Resources had to give up three individuals. One of those individuals was a lovely woman. She's a single mother. Her kids had just entered high school. She was working as a benefits specialist in HR, specializing in retirement plans but also having a pretty significant background in health programs. When she was laid off, she went out and applied everywhere. At this time, there weren't many places hiring.

    So, she applied for a job at Davis College in Binghamton, NY. She was thrilled that she got an interview. After the interview she got an offer. She went in to start the job and was presented with a statement of faith she was expected to sign as a condition of employment. She was devastated. She's Druze and was being given a very simple choice; turn down the job (in doing so, potentially forfeiting her unemployment benefits) and fall back on nothing. There were no other interviews, let alone offers, on the table at that time. Or sign a paper that said she accepted Jesus Christ as her personal savior so that she could feed her kids.

    She didn't apply to work for a church. She applied to work at a local college. Sure, she knew it was a Christian college but she also knew that they were cranking out secular degrees. And, had she been applying to LeMoyne in Syracuse, her faith would not have been an issue at all, despite LeMoyne being a Catholic university.

    Now, if these colleges were not supported by tax dollars, I would say it was unfortunate. After all, had she applied for a job at a Lutheran Church, one could completely understand them not wanting to hire a non-Lutheran.

    But her religion doesn't impact her ability to administer retirement plans and health benefits.

    As a private employer with government contracts I have significant affirmative action reporting requirements. Yet, these schools basically live off of federal student aid and are allowed to require every member of their staff be adherents to a specific faith? Legal or not that's disgusting.
  7. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    She didn't know the requirements going in? There's a couple of religous schools in my area, and one of them requires a 1 page essay from the applicant on their personal commitment to Jesus Christ. To me it seems very clear that they would not want someone like me working there and of course there is no way I would want to work there.

    Does Davis College proved instructions on the application telling people of the requirements? She was unaware of the requirement to sign the letter going in? She's a single mother and a Druze, I was under the impression that divorce was forbidden under their religous rules?

    Did she take the job?
  8. SteveFoerster

    SteveFoerster Resident Gadfly Staff Member

    I wonder whether Liberty University would add it to the list of graduate acceptances. :wink:
  9. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    If you go on their website the requirement is listed. I don't believe she applied through the website, she likely responded to a job posting on a secular job board. She said that the interview process made it very clear that it was a Christian school and they had expectations of conduct for staff, but there was no mention that she would need to adhere to a statement of faith.

    I do not know what their application process looks like. However, different organizations have different ways of accepting applications. At my company, we do not accept resumes directly. You have to go online and sign up on our staffing website. You can attach a resume but you must fill out the required forms and read the required disclosures. You can't just mail or fax us a resume (well, you can, but we'll throw it out). I don't know if Davis requires everyone to go through a central applicant portal where this requirement is listed or if it is possible to miss the requirement completely by responding to a posting on an external board.

    The flip side is that when you are unemployed and desperate you apply to every job under the sun and hope something sticks. So, even if she applied through the website, I can understand why a jobseeker (particularly one who was desperate for work) would gloss over it.

    She told me that with the Christian culture of the school she anticipated she might be facing some restrictions in terms of dress and behavior. She expected maybe she would have to essentially "promise" to be respectful of Christianity. But no, she was not aware that she would be required to be Christian to get a job there nor did she expect the requirement would be put into writing.

    I'm not sure why you decided she was divorced. Her husband died of pancreatic cancer about five years before this occurred.

    She did. And she felt pretty terrible about the fact that she had to lie about her faith in order to collect a paycheck. Fortunately, the economy did rebound and she was able to find another job after about a year and a half of searching. She has since returned to our company.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 25, 2015
  10. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    The problem with discriminatory hiring practice is that it isn't always so easy to just find another job or just don't work there.

    Faith-based organizations receive federal funds. I have no issue with this. But when those organizations discriminate in their hiring I have a very big problem with that.

    It has nothing to do with a student's "right to choose" a certain school. Students sometimes choose to study overseas but that doesn't mean federal financial aid should cover those studies. There are many universities founded in religious traditions who still hire a diverse workforce, particularly the staff members whose personal religious views would not conflict with the school's mission, so when I see schools where that is not the culture I am less than thrilled.

    What if the First Church of Neuhaus prohibited Hispanics or African-Americans from being members of the church and required all employees of Neuhaus University to be members of the church? While it may be my constitutional right to be a faith-based bigot the broader public should have the right to deny me public funds.

    I'm glad that Liberty is a great program for those who have taken their courses. I'm glad that the programs worked out well for you. I respect their marketing machine and what they've done for DL. But none of the many good things they do make discrimination OK.
  11. 03310151

    03310151 Active Member

    Well glad she found other employment, I was laid off in 2008 as well and ended up working for Wal-Mart as a second job while searching for IT work so I know what its like to work in less than favorable conditions (not that working for WalMart is like signing a letter for JC in order to work) while looking for something more in your wheelhouse.
  12. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    Hopefully you have landed in a better place.

    I think it's a matter of context. My parents were non-practicing Christians. I was baptized. I dabbled in Evangelical Christianity while I was in the Navy. I'm not anti-Christian, I just don't identify as Christian in the same way I don't identify as being a welder. I don't think there's anything wrong with being a welder. But if you put out a sign that said "Free Picnic for Welders" I wouldn't attend because I don't consider myself a part of that crew.

    Had I been the one to be applying to the likes of Davis or Liberty I would probably sign the paper to avoid unemployment. But I wouldn't actually care. Technically, on paper, I'm a Christian. I was baptized. I have a receipt from a donation I made to a church over a decade ago. My dog tags read "Methodist" because I had nothing else to put there. I'm not an atheist. I am just a person who appreciates a variety of philosophical approaches to life (too many characters for a dog tag).

    If, however, I was a committed Jew or Muslim (or Druze) and I was required to sign a statement affirming my faith in JC, I could imagine I would feel like I was, in a sense, being forcibly converted like they used to do in Spain. No one would be holding a sword to my throat but my lack of signing would mean economic ruin for me and my children. That's a pretty coercive feeling. I don't mean that Davis College (or Liberty) is doing the forcing. You could say you're being forced by circumstance. But it is still a sucky situation nonetheless.

    Being forced to pretend you're something you're not might be more comparable to working at Wal-Mart than you think. In either case, despite the work not being "bad," you are in a situation where a little voice inside of you probably just wants to scream "What you see isn't the real me!"

    That's an awkward position. My point is simply that if your school is going to receive federal (and likely state) money the people you hire for non-religious roles should be subject to the same requirements of a secular private employer.
  13. potpourri

    potpourri New Member

    I must say I'm very impressed with your articulate and thoughtful post. I would like to present to you an opportunity for us to collaborate together.

    Do you like writing? Are you presently working? Please PM me so that we can discuss this possibility more further. Thank you.
  14. jhp

    jhp Member

    Secularism is a religion in my opinion.

    religare to bind, to be obligated to, to revere, and from that we get religion.

    Some further define religion as "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" or "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" or "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons" or "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices", and so on.

    In an attempt to create and explicit chasm between "church and state", a new religion was created. I am not alone in this thinking as there are ample individuals who have the same thought (Ritchie, Leise, Vitz, Voigt, Beck-Gernsheim, Coubertin, etc.)

    So why support only one religion (secularism)?

  15. Neuhaus

    Neuhaus Well-Known Member

    There is no such thing as cold. Cold is merely the absence of heat.

    Same with darkness. You cannot measure darkness. You can only measure the amount of light.

    Likewise, secularism isn't a religion. It is merely the absence of religion. Now, there are atheists and humanists who organize and essentially create their own religion. I'm not talking about those individual groups. I'm talking about the idea that not everything (like accounting) is about Jesus.

    The notion that leaving religion outside of the classroom for non-religious subjects is, in itself, a religion is so patently absurd that it boggles the mind.
  16. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    I think it's obvious the two sides aren't going to agree on this. I completely understand your perspective on the matter. I just completely disagree with it all the way to my core. I'm certain you feel the same way. Thankfully, at least for me and for those with similar views, the government allows the practice.
  17. Tim D

    Tim D Member

    So Pug, you are saying that disbelief is a belief? I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that you only believe in one supreme being. This means that you don't believe that there are any other Gods except for the one. Is it that hard to believe that someone may just not believe in one less than you do? That by not believing in an invisible man in the sky in and of itself is not a religion nor a belief but a lack of one.
  18. Pugbelly2

    Pugbelly2 Member

    I was actually referring to earlier posts where we were all debating whether or not tax dollars should be used for schools like Liberty University where teachers are required to sign a belief statement as a condition of employment. I have no problem with it. I'd also have no problem with tax dollars being used at a Muslim school, Jewish school, etc.

    Regarding your questions, yes, I believe in a single supreme being. No, I don't find it hard to believe that others may not believe in a supreme being. However, based on scientific evidence, I find it harder to believe in nothing than it is to believe in something. No, I don't consider the lack of belief a religion, but the manner in which some secularists conduct themselves is just as devout, proselytizing and intolerant as one could find in any religion.
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2015
  19. 1stLUDBA

    1stLUDBA New Member

    I am among the 1st group of DBA students. It is a great program! If you are expecting to take the MBA to the next level and the professors to teach you more, you will be disappointed. It is all about research and education, not being spoon feed information and regurgitating it. I started a different program and it was a joke. This degree was not easy. However, I felt it helped to build a solid foundation and helped me to learn more on qualitative and quantitative research.
  20. phdorbust

    phdorbust New Member

    Agree with neuhaus

    I couldn't agree more. I understand allowing Federal aid for students to choose their "brand" of higher education. What I don't agree with is supporting institutions who make their faculty take affirmations of faith. I get all of the governance issues- yes, you can make faculty do this in accordance with the mission. But I think it is a huge waste of resources and funds.

    Nobody needs a religious perspective on accounting. Would you want your airplane pilot substituting religious training for flight time? Or how about a faith-based approach to driver's Ed? I'll take a road-based approach.

    Liberty and Regent are both this way. I took a grad class at Regent that I actually thought was very well done. I have a PhD from a state flagship. I thought the course was great. Praying for me throughout, and having to justify things from a religious perspective was tiresome. Yes, it's an exercise in logical thinking, but took away from the academic experience.

    I just don't see it. The thought of taking any religious text at literal word, as does Liberty, flies in the face of the entire PhD process. Science is not religion. It can't be.

    Also, diagnosing anger and work history from posting is the most ridiculous notion I've ever heard of. Way too much of this goes on and folks should stop.

Share This Page