By Emily Werrett
BYU and other religious colleges are seeking to ensure that accreditation agencies consider and respect their religious missions in upcoming reviews of the universities.
The church-affiliated universities are calling for an exemption from certain accreditation standards, such as diversity and course requirements that are contradictory to the religious institution”s mission. The exemption would include protection from employing gays and lesbians on the schools” faculty, requiring curriculum that contradicts religious beliefs and embracing standards that are not in line with the basic values of the institutions.
Other schools joining the effort include Notre Dame, Baylor, Pepperdine, Catholic and Samford universities.
“This is a pre-emptive move by a number of schools,” said BYU spokeswoman Carri Jenkins. “Among many people there is recognized and appreciated the diversity that exists in higher education. Religious universities are part of that diversity. We want to make sure that we can stay true to our missions.”
Rep. Howard “Buck” McKeon, R-Calif., a BYU graduate, added the religious universities language to the higher education bill. The bill is being discussed in the Senate after being passed in the House last week.
“What the bill would do is make a slight modification to what is known as the Higher Education Pact, which governs funding for higher education in the country,” said Gene Schaerr, the lead attorney in Washington who represents BYU, Notre Dame, Baylor, Samford and other religious institutions on this issue. “The change that would be made is that it would say that accrediting agencies have to respect the missions of the institutions that they accredit, including religious missions.”
Lawmakers say there has not been a specific case where accreditation has been revoked by an accrediting agency on religious grounds, but they think preventative measures need to be taken to ensure that it does not happen.
“Once in a while there is friction here and there that suggests that some accrediting agencies don”t always fully respect some of the religious university”s missions,” Schaerr said. “This law is really just an attempt to foreclose any potential problems.”
Bob Andringa, President of the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities, headquartered in Washington, said, “The legislation reflects the understanding that most accrediting bodies already have, but there are a few programmatic accreditors who lean on some religious colleges unfairly when they may not understand the role of faith and scholarship integration.”
Psychology is one such program that has experienced some resistance. The American Psychology Association is an independent organization that accredits psychology programs. The association has discussed repealing terms that exempt religious institutions from standards that require a diverse faculty. The exemption has not been repealed, but the risk has raised concerns.
Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, supports the legislation and said the move is aimed to put a protective layer on religious institutions.
“BYU and other religious institutions want the APA and other accrediting agencies like them to not have the ability to revoke accreditation based upon issues that are morally and religiously important, and to which we cannot comply to without changing our moral values,” Cannon said.
Lawmakers who oppose the legislation say the accrediting agencies already make exceptions for religious universities. They say the accrediting agencies are already a self-regulating body and government intervention is unnecessary.
“We believe that the amendment is not warranted in light of current practices by accrediting agencies,” wrote Democrats on the Senate committee in opposition to the bill.
They also expressed concern for the independence of accrediting agencies if the government stepped in. Schaerr, however, said there are already laws governing what accrediting bodies can and cannot do, calling the proposal a modest additional requirement for dealing with religious colleges.
“Most of the accrediting agencies are private institutions, but they wield enormous governmental power because they effectively determine whether the department of education can provide various kinds of financial assistance both directly and indirectly,” Schaerr said. “We believe that because accrediting bodies effectively control where government money goes, they are exercising a form of governmental power when they do their jobs; therefore, in the exercise of that power, they ought to be accountable to the government.”
