"War on Christian Colleges"?

A researcher published a report entitled The Department of Education's Office of Enforcement: The Obscure Agency Leading a Crusade Against Christian Colleges and How New Data Proves the Bias.

"Analysis of the limited data found that the Office of Enforcement’s actions have been anything but equitable. Instead, the agency has almost exclusively targeted Christian universities and career colleges with massive penalties that far exceed the alleged violations, which have frequently been contended by schools, experts, and even students."

"Over the last 10 years, the Department of Education has issued nearly 75 fines for Clery Act violations, totaling $27.5 million in penalties. Twenty of those, more than a quarter, were against Christian colleges and universities. The average fine against a Christian school was $815,000, compared to $228,571 against public and private institutions."

 

Published by the "American Principles Project," a deeply right-wing political group.

I wonder what a credible source would have to say about the subject?

 

There are various types of Christian institutions, and from what I’ve gathered, regionally accredited Christian colleges, as well as other faith-based institutions, typically do not face negative or hostile treatment from the Department of Education (DOE) or other relevant organizations.

For instance, my friend in Los Angeles graduated from Los Angeles Pacific University, a WASC-accredited institution (LAPU website) with online degree, and has not encountered any issues related to accreditation or recognition.
Another friend graduated from Denver Seminary (Denver Seminary website), a respected institution, and was able to secure teaching positions in academia while simultaneously pursuing a career in counseling.

The key distinction seems to be that while these schools maintain high academic standards, they also offer the benefit of a faith-based educational environment, demonstrating that academic rigor and faith-based values can coexist effectively.

In contrast, when institutions compromise on academic rigor or accreditation quality, their graduates may find it more difficult to gain recognition or credibility in academic circles.

 

A disparity in treatment can be an indicator of discrimination. But it is not proof. An equally plausible--more so, actually--explanation is that the groups of schools being disciplined are doing things that warrant those actions.

 

There are approximately 900 religiously affiliated colleges in the US, all but a handful identifying as Christian.

Within 10 years, only 20 Christian colleges were fined for Clery Act violations. Almost every Christian college is untouched by Clery Act fines. Approximately 73% of Clery Act fines were levied on non-Christian colleges. The average fine out of 20 fines against group A compared to the average fine out of approximately 55 fines against group B is not necessarily much value in comparing the treatment of groups A and B as groups. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one outlier pulled the Group A mean up. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one school did or failed to do something egregious meriting an outlier fine.

This does not show a war on Christian colleges.

 

While I am not necessarily persuaded by the report, it is fallacious to suppose that a report is neither credible nor legitimate because of its source. Further, the notion that only non-right-wing sources are credible is indefensible and is again a form of the genetic fallacy.

 

No, he only implied them.

Ideological neutrality is illusory, and, therefore, the appeal to unbiased information is circular. The best we can do IMO is deal with the actual data in hopes that it isn't skewed. I have no reason to believe the report presents data that is inaccurate. Do you?

 

Unless you're seeking to question the natural reading and syntax of his statement, yes. Quite clear.

 

The source of the report is not credible. This is not due to the direction of its bias, but to the bias itself.

 

I don't have a horse in this race, but wouldn't all network television news outlets be deemed as not credible because of the same bias?

 

It's not a binary concept. I doubt bias could be completely stripped from the news.

There are assertions, which are facts. They're pretty unbiased, but not completely. For example, which assertions to employ would be a decision, and that decision could be subject to bias.

Then there are assessments, which is what you make of the assertion(s). These are heavily subject to bias.

Regarding news sources, the more assessments being made, the more likely bias is present and operative. The more assertions being made, the less likely bias will be a factor. (But again, not eliminated.)

Thus, NPR is pretty unbiased, while MSNBC and Fox are heavily so.

The source from the original post has a stated agenda. Thus, it would have to strain to eliminate bias in its report. It does not seem to do so.