The Biden administration's Department of Education (ED) has come under scrutiny following revelations that nearly 70% of its enforcement actions have targeted faith-based and career-focused educational institutions, according to a new report by the American Principles Project (APP).
The report highlights concerns about biased Biden administration oversight and penalties imposed on Christian colleges, including Grand Canyon University (GCU) and Liberty University, while these institutions serve a minority of the U.S. student body, as Fox News reports.
The APP report indicates that enforcement measures disproportionately affect schools serving less than 10% of American students. Faith-based and career colleges have found themselves under intense scrutiny and have received record fines from the ED.
Among the institutions cited, Grand Canyon University (GCU) and Liberty University stand out due to significant fines and enforcement actions. GCU, in particular, faces a substantial $37.7 million penalty for allegedly misleading its students concerning doctoral program costs over several years.
Liberty University, along with other Christian colleges, has faced penalties described as excessive when compared to similar actions against nonfaith-based institutions. APP highlights concerns that such enforcement is disproportionate and potentially unfair.
ED Secretary Miguel Cardona has been vocal about the department's stance on "predatory schools," expressing a commitment to strong measures during a House Appropriations Committee hearing. He emphasized the focus on schools perceived as targeting first-generation college attendees.
In detailing the scale of enforcement, the APP report outlined notable differences in penalties between Christian schools and their public or private counterparts. This includes average fines of $815,000 for Christian institutions for Clery Act violations, compared to $228,571 for others.
The report also underscores the absence of any punitive measures taken by the ED's Office of Enforcement against Ivy League schools. This omission raises questions about consistency in enforcement actions across different educational institutions.
Furthermore, the report illustrates that twelve Christian colleges have faced direct financial penalties or have been banned from federal student aid programs, intensifying the perception of targeted enforcement.
GCU's battle for recognition as a nonprofit institution has added another layer to the narrative of targeting. The university recently secured a legal victory in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court found that the ED improperly denied GCU's nonprofit status by using incorrect standards.
The ED, however, has refuted claims of bias in its enforcement strategy. A representative affirmed that the school’s religious status or classification as nonprofit does not influence the department's approach to oversight or enforcement.
In response to APP's findings, the ED stated that the report distorts data that is available to the public, suggesting that the narratives being presented are misleading.
Jon Schweppe, APP Policy Director, has been vocal in his criticisms of the administration. He accuses the Biden-Harris Department of Education of leveraging its power to unfairly target educational institutions that diverge ideologically from governmental agendas.
Schweppe contends that these actions are part of a broader effort by Democrats to weaponize federal agencies against perceived opponents. He stresses the need for these alleged punitive measures to be curtailed immediately.
This controversy has prompted broader discussions about educational policy and enforcement practices. While the APP's findings continue to draw attention, the dialogue highlights a deep divide in perceptions of fairness and bias in educational oversight.
The controversy is magnified by the complex interplay of politics, education, and religious freedoms. Secretary Cardona’s comments about "predatory schools" reflect a significant point of contention regarding how oversight strategies are devised and implemented.
The broader implications for educational institutions, particularly those serving specific ideologies or communities, remain at the core of these debates. The complexities of regulatory enforcement and its perceived implications for faith-based education continue to draw interest and concern.
As discussions persist, the actions and responses from both the ED and APP showcase the ongoing tensions and the need for clarity and fairness in the field of higher education enforcement.
