Topic: NHR: How Liberty University Built a Billion-Dollar Empire Online

[riflearm3]

Uh, last time I looked, Liberty has black athletes competing for the school. Man you are a damn drama queen.

Ok, you have to follow up on this one. Are you stating that Liberty does not allow blacks to enroll? I

 That's not what I am saying at all. Both of you need to focus on reading things in context. I responded to the quote that just because institutions (colleges) have different views on issues than we may have, it doesn't mean we shouldn't compete/associate with them as conference mates.

 To show how ridiculous this comment was, I used two examples. The first example was using his "logic" that we should play schools who refuse to admit blacks. After all, why should we not play/allow schools in C-USA who refuse to admit blacks? We shouldn't let different views of the institutions from impeding our competition/association with them in sports, right? See how absurd this is? If not, go look at why schools like Kentucky refused to play integrated basketball teams from the north, and in response, why northern schools refused to play those schools that refused to integrate.

 My next example was to show the same thing; that his comment was absurd. Based on his "logic," we should play Dearborn Muslim University in football even if they state that all people who refuse to convert to Islam should be executed. After all, many institutions have differing views on many topics, but that shouldn't keep us from competing against them in sports and/or allowing them into Conference USA, right? It's a perfect analogy of why not allowing a school like Liberty - a school which hasn't even bothered to historically hide their homosexuality bigotry - to enter Conference USA makes sense.

 Sometimes, as sports fans, we get so jaded into wanting our teams/conferences to succeed that we miss the bigger picture. In no way should Marshall allow itself to be in the same conference with a school that practices such bigotry (and, in fairness, Liberty has greatly softened its stance on the issue). Luckily, the leaders of the universities in the conference all agree with that.

 

Rifle are you trying to ruin the entire internet or just MU message boards?

The herd nation tolerates you, is that not enough?

 It's a valid discussion regarding why a school shouldn't be allowed in the conference. I didn't bring up the subject. Sorry if the discussion is beyond your level of discourse and/or insults your poor ethics.

[2xBison]

you don't know anything about me or my ethics.

you have a lot of free time on your hands for an independently wealthy playboy.

I look forward to seeing your name atop the big green donor lists in the game programs.

[saherdfan]

Money is money and guess what we need money.  Too much political crap.  I see $$$.  Why not but to be stupid in political correctness. 

[riflearm3]

you don't know anything about me or my ethics.

you have a lot of free time on your hands for an independently wealthy playboy.

I look forward to seeing your name atop the big green donor lists in the game programs.

 I know enough about your ethics from you thinking it is "ruining a message board" for somebody to speak out against allowing a school that practices such bigotry to be associated with Marshall.

 And your comment makes no sense. People who are independently wealthy have plenty of free time. So if I have a lot of free time on my hands, as you claim, it doesn't make sense that you would say "for an independently wealthy playboy." Those things usually go hand-in-hand.

 

[MarshallGrad]

The use of extremes makes the reference to "logic" is my objection.  No reasonable person, and no marginally acceptable norm in todays America, would accept the denial of university enrollment based on color, or the acceptance of a school that promoted off with your head policies. It is reasonable to disagree on contentious issues. It is not reasonable to use extreme fringe concepts as the basis for logic in an argument against reasonable disagreements. I am for the rights of anyone of legal age to marry anyone of legal age, but I don't think that because I am for that, that there isn't some latitude for religious debate over it. We have the supreme course to help us determine law from beliefs.

These difference of views are not the logical equivalent to excluding enrollment based on skin color or official school policy that calls for the death of those not converting to islam. The analogy is too extreme.

That's just my view.

[Ovaltine Jenkins]

Money is money and guess what we need money.  Too much political crap.  I see $$$.  Why not but to be stupid in political correctness.

It's not about that nebulous term "PC".  It's more about former Baylor AD Ian McCaw's hiring at Liberty that gave both C-USA and the Belt pause.  Sure, there are other issues, but his presence is a major stumbling block.

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/story/_/id/22266309/ex-baylor-bears-executives-subpoenaed-lawsuit

[bbcard1]

Yet, we took Charlotte and FIU. Liberty has is moving forward quickly and has that dreaded word -  "potential".

Depending on your measurement, they have already arrived. They have a much larger student population than virtually any school in CUSA, they have an endowment about 10x larger than Marshall's and larger than any CUSA school except Rice. They have beat a big time program and are clearly committed to their athletic programs. And they are hungry to become bigger and more nationally prominent. That's different than the current CUSA weak sisters.  I am not so sure it's not different from nearly every school in CUSA.  No wonder the university presidents don't want to be associated with them.

[riflearm3]

The use of extremes makes the reference to "logic" is my objection.  No reasonable person, and no marginally acceptable norm in todays America, would accept the denial of university enrollment based on color, or the acceptance of a school that promoted off with your head policies. It is reasonable to disagree on contentious issues. It is not reasonable to use extreme fringe concepts as the basis for logic in an argument against reasonable disagreements. I am for the rights of anyone of legal age to marry anyone of legal age, but I don't think that because I am for that, that there isn't some latitude for religious debate over it. We have the supreme course to help us determine law from beliefs.

These difference of views are not the logical equivalent to excluding enrollment based on skin color or official school policy that calls for the death of those not converting to islam. The analogy is too extreme.

That's just my view.

 First, I appreciate a logical and respectful post without the usual attempts many on this board show trying to turn the subject into being about me personally.

 Correct, no reasonable person today would accept denying entry into an organization based on skin color. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who do support that. At the same time, the denial of those same equal rights based on sex, gender, preference, etc. is more widely accepted in certain areas of this country, which is shown even by some in this thread. Fortunately, just like with skin color, that bigotry is subsiding over time throughout the country. But just because that type of bigotry currently has stronger support than racism, does it mean we should somehow understand and give legitimacy to that bigotry? Of course not.

 My point was that the bigotry shown today (in this thread, by Liberty, etc.) is acceptable only because there is stronger public support for it. Just decades ago, that same type of bigotry based on race was also acceptable because of strong public support for it. We saw what has happened to the support of bigotry based on race. Decades from now, it will be no different than the bigotry shown based on sex, gender, and preference. Why would we (either as individual people or as part of Marshall) give any legitimacy to that bigotry and associate with that kind? Wrong is wrong, regardless of how much or little support currently backs the position.

 I find it interesting that you think there is some latitude for religious debate over the bigotry and promise of eternal damnation for gays, but you find it drastically different for the support of killing non-believers of another religion. Both of those religious beliefs support the killing of those who refuse to accept their beliefs. Sure, one is more pro-active than the other, but the end result and approval of it is the same.

[2xBison]

looks like it is about time to park this one over on the tavern off the green or anywhere else other than a place to discuss MU sports.....

[jn330]

I'm a Liberty grad from the 90's and haven't been there for more than 15 years.  Just visited campus a couple weeks ago.  I was floored by the facilities.  I honestly don't know a school in the nation that could have better facilities at this point.  Nearly every building is less than 10 years old.  The athletic facilities would perhaps be the class of C-USA.  There's this 14-15 story observation tower on campus, and from it you look down and see a state of the art football stadium under construction, a beautiful indoor practice facility, brand new softball, baseball, tennis, and track facilities, a really nice soccer complex.  There's an indoor hockey rink on campus that serves as an ice skating rink. The basketball facility is the only old sports facility, and it's still great.  Seats 8-10,000 in a geodesic dome. Every seat is a great view.  I'm probably missing something.  But athletically, the facilities are amazing.  The academic facilities are also spectacular, from my tour of the engineering, religion, film, and graphics arts departments.
From a Marshall Fan standpoint, this is a school I think you'd want in your conference.  It's a beautiful drive of 4.5 hours to get to games, with plenty of hotels, restaurants, and things to do in the area. 
Regarding Liberty's reputation...

Jerry Fallwell Jr. is a shrewd businessman and a moral embarrassment.  I see no evidence the he is actually a Christian. It's incredibly frustrating as an alum, but with their 85,000 student online program, they don't care about the concerns of past grads. Their hiring of the ex-Baylor athletic director is a prime example of what's wrong with the administration. 

The on campus instruction seems to be excellent.  The online degree program feels like a diploma mill.  I'm sure some of it's good, but I know some is trash.  It was the same 20 years ago.  I had to take 3 courses through distance learning, paid the same rates as on campus, and I literally finished one class from start to finish in 3 days.  I'd love for the federal government to crack down on standards for online degrees in general.  It's a crap shoot.

In the realm of the school rules-if you don't like it, don't go.  It's the same with every school.  But I guarantee you that a gay student would be treated with more kindness at Liberty than a conservative Christian would at UC Berkley.  Liberty's rules forbid sexual activity outside of marriage for heterosexual students too.  They forbid lots of things.  Students break all of those rules.  Generally they work with the kids unless they're just dead set against trying to follow the schools code. And if they are, again, don't go there! 

Most intersting to me in the entire article was a little snippet about the amount of money schools spend on instruction, student services, etc. vs. their intake.  Liberty's was a joke, somewhere between $2,000 and $3000 (because it's so cheap per online student).  But as a reference they mentioned Notre Dame, which spends about $27,000 a year per student.  But tuition at Notre Dame is over $51,000 a year!!!!!  THIS is what's wrong with higher education in the U.S.  You pay to send your kids to very expensive playgrounds.  I think I might have my sons just get really good at mowing lawns.

[herdfifteen]

I thought they would be good for our conference and we would be good for them. Nothing I have seen or heard has changed my thinking.

[herd2win]

First, I appreciate a logical and respectful post without the usual attempts many on this board show trying to turn the subject into being about me personally.

 Correct, no reasonable person today would accept denying entry into an organization based on skin color. Unfortunately, there are plenty of people out there who do support that. At the same time, the denial of those same equal rights based on sex, gender, preference, etc. is more widely accepted in certain areas of this country, which is shown even by some in this thread. Fortunately, just like with skin color, that bigotry is subsiding over time throughout the country. But just because that type of bigotry currently has stronger support than racism, does it mean we should somehow understand and give legitimacy to that bigotry? Of course not.

 My point was that the bigotry shown today (in this thread, by Liberty, etc.) is acceptable only because there is stronger public support for it. Just decades ago, that same type of bigotry based on race was also acceptable because of strong public support for it. We saw what has happened to the support of bigotry based on race. Decades from now, it will be no different than the bigotry shown based on sex, gender, and preference. Why would we (either as individual people or as part of Marshall) give any legitimacy to that bigotry and associate with that kind? Wrong is wrong, regardless of how much or little support currently backs the position.

 I find it interesting that you think there is some latitude for religious debate over the bigotry and promise of eternal damnation for gays, but you find it drastically different for the support of killing non-believers of another religion. Both of those religious beliefs support the killing of those who refuse to accept their beliefs. Sure, one is more pro-active than the other, but the end result and approval of it is the same.

What about schools that show bigotry against Christian beliefs?  Why is that any different?  What about schools that show prejudice against certain political beliefs?  As stated...try having a conservative Christian speaker at UC Berkley or many other schools and see how they are treated....it is bigotry so why call out Liberty's views?

[sardistim]

What about schools that show bigotry against Christian beliefs?  Why is that any different?  What about schools that show prejudice against certain political beliefs?  As stated...try having a conservative Christian speaker at UC Berkley or many other schools and see how they are treated....it is bigotry so why call out Liberty's views?

There are no colleges that show bigotry against Christian beliefs.  That's Fox News propaganda.  There are schools which do not give preference to Christian practices and treat everyone equally, which is often mistakenly viewed as bigotry against Christians.  Conservative Christian student speakers on UC Berkley's campus and those with ties to its students have free speech rights as do all other students and their organizations.  A grand-standing conservative bomb-thrower with no academic purpose is not welcome at UC Berkley, but that's a very different thing.

[coalherd]

I'm a Liberty grad from the 90's and haven't been there for more than 15 years.  Just visited campus a couple weeks ago.  I was floored by the facilities.  I honestly don't know a school in the nation that could have better facilities at this point.  Nearly every building is less than 10 years old.  The athletic facilities would perhaps be the class of C-USA.  There's this 14-15 story observation tower on campus, and from it you look down and see a state of the art football stadium under construction, a beautiful indoor practice facility, brand new softball, baseball, tennis, and track facilities, a really nice soccer complex.  There's an indoor hockey rink on campus that serves as an ice skating rink. The basketball facility is the only old sports facility, and it's still great.  Seats 8-10,000 in a geodesic dome. Every seat is a great view.  I'm probably missing something.  But athletically, the facilities are amazing.  The academic facilities are also spectacular, from my tour of the engineering, religion, film, and graphics arts departments.
From a Marshall Fan standpoint, this is a school I think you'd want in your conference.  It's a beautiful drive of 4.5 hours to get to games, with plenty of hotels, restaurants, and things to do in the area. 
Regarding Liberty's reputation...

Jerry Fallwell Jr. is a shrewd businessman and a moral embarrassment.  I see no evidence the he is actually a Christian. It's incredibly frustrating as an alum, but with their 85,000 student online program, they don't care about the concerns of past grads. Their hiring of the ex-Baylor athletic director is a prime example of what's wrong with the administration. 

The on campus instruction seems to be excellent.  The online degree program feels like a diploma mill.  I'm sure some of it's good, but I know some is trash.  It was the same 20 years ago.  I had to take 3 courses through distance learning, paid the same rates as on campus, and I literally finished one class from start to finish in 3 days.  I'd love for the federal government to crack down on standards for online degrees in general.  It's a crap shoot.

In the realm of the school rules-if you don't like it, don't go.  It's the same with every school.  But I guarantee you that a gay student would be treated with more kindness at Liberty than a conservative Christian would at UC Berkley.  Liberty's rules forbid sexual activity outside of marriage for heterosexual students too.  They forbid lots of things.  Students break all of those rules.  Generally they work with the kids unless they're just dead set against trying to follow the schools code. And if they are, again, don't go there! 

Most intersting to me in the entire article was a little snippet about the amount of money schools spend on instruction, student services, etc. vs. their intake.  Liberty's was a joke, somewhere between $2,000 and $3000 (because it's so cheap per online student).  But as a reference they mentioned Notre Dame, which spends about $27,000 a year per student.  But tuition at Notre Dame is over $51,000 a year!!!!!  THIS is what's wrong with higher education in the U.S.  You pay to send your kids to very expensive playgrounds.  I think I might have my sons just get really good at mowing lawns.

Obviously, from strictly a campus development and growth standpoint, Liberty has plenty of BOTH necessary ingredients that MU greatly lacks:  MONEY and plenty of available, developable LAND!!!!  MU's campus is land locked and it can't afford the jacked up prices that owners want for adjacent property, whether near slums, abandoned business sites, etc. 

We've seen MU miss out on the old Glaser location now a Fat Patty's.  You can also add the former Stationer's just across 5th Ave. from the West lot which is now a large CVS and parking lot.  MU apparently owns the abandoned church near the West Lot on 5th Ave. and 21st St. but can't even afford to raze it for parking.  Look behind the new Indoor Facility along 5th Ave.  A couple of houses, an empty business location as well as the property that was a former Pizza Hut location.  MU should have already purchased all these locations, everything but the two viable businesses, Wendy's and McDonald's.  Would provide for additional parking, make the whole athletic complex more attractive, with some landscaping, etc.

MU should have already been aggressive in buy land from Hal Greer along Sixth Avenue to 18th or even on to 20th Street, most of which consists of older single family homes.  Some it has purchased for projects like the 6th Avenue parking structure.  If it ever hopes to realize its goal of growing to 20,000 students or larger, it is either going to have to more aggressively pursue buying up adjacent parcels of land or, in the alternative, do as many "urban oriented" universities do, come up with the $$$ to build more vertically when it comes to campus projects (like the 8 story Smith Hall, 15 story Tower dorms, etc.).  That's what schools like Pitt, Virginia Commonwealth (VCU), have done, basically out of necessity.

Other schools, like Liberty and maybe James Madison don't have such problems.  Heck, when I was at MU Madison was a small private women's college.  When the state of Virginia took it over, the school could easily expand because there was a lot of farmland all around it that it could reasonably purchase.  So today it has over 700 acres with about 120 major buildings, while MU has to scratch and claw to locate a site and build a "phone booth", much less something like a baseball park, a tennis facility, new dorms and academic buildings.

[riflearm3]

What about schools that show bigotry against Christian beliefs?  Why is that any different?  What about schools that show prejudice against certain political beliefs?  As stated...try having a conservative Christian speaker at UC Berkley or many other schools and see how they are treated....it is bigotry so why call out Liberty's views?

 Your argument has a couple of huge holes in it. First, Berkeley (at least the administration) has welcomed (or attempted to) extremely conservative, Christian speakers. At times, the students may try to infringe the ability of that person to speak, but that isn't the fault of the institution nor it is a set of rules that the institution has in place to discriminate against a religion. There are plenty of Republicans and plenty of Christians at Berkeley. In fact, the a high percentage of students there consider themselves to be Christian. And those Christians don't feel out of place. According to a 2012 study, 80% of Christian students (4917 Christian students responded to the survey) at Berkeley felt they were respected as Christians on campus. In comparison, 75% of Jews (546) and 81% of Muslims (277) felt the same, so the numbers were consistent across the board. Perhaps, as mentioned earlier, Christians may feel persecuted if they aren't given the special treatment they usually receive throughout the country and are treated as equals with followers of other religions.

 Second, religion is a belief system. It is a chosen ideology that people are free to choose to follow. Homosexuality is not. Race is not. Should a religion which frequently kidnaps and sacrifices virgins as part of its rituals be given the same treatment as a religion which practices acceptance, tolerance, and peace? Of course not. Following those religions is a choice. So being bigoted towards something that is a choice is entirely different than being bigoted towards something that people are not able to choose.

[herdfifteen]

Please take it to another board.

[bigwormy]

Buddy, you either choose to bend over or you don’t so don’t tell me you can’t choose if your a homo  or not. You can also choose to wear a tampon or wear a jock strap.. your free to choose what you want so don’t tell me it’s not a choice!!  I won’t listen to your liberal BS talking points. It’s people like you that keep bigotry alive and well in all of your “almighty” standards you claim to have!

[herd2win]

Your argument has a couple of huge holes in it. First, Berkeley (at least the administration) has welcomed (or attempted to) extremely conservative, Christian speakers. At times, the students may try to infringe the ability of that person to speak, but that isn't the fault of the institution nor it is a set of rules that the institution has in place to discriminate against a religion. There are plenty of Republicans and plenty of Christians at Berkeley. In fact, the a high percentage of students there consider themselves to be Christian. And those Christians don't feel out of place. According to a 2012 study, 80% of Christian students (4917 Christian students responded to the survey) at Berkeley felt they were respected as Christians on campus. In comparison, 75% of Jews (546) and 81% of Muslims (277) felt the same, so the numbers were consistent across the board. Perhaps, as mentioned earlier, Christians may feel persecuted if they aren't given the special treatment they usually receivthroughout the country and are treated as equals with followers of other religions.

According to your argument then homosexuals should not be given special treatment or protection...according to you religion is a choice but so is being a homosexual...there has not been one proven scientific universally accepted gene that determines if someone is gay or not...

 Second, religion is a belief system. It is a chosen ideology that people are free to choose to follow. Homosexuality is not. Race is not. Should a religion which frequently kidnaps and sacrifices virgins as part of its rituals be given the same treatment as a religion which practices acceptance, tolerance, and peace? Of course not. Following those religions is a choice. So being bigoted towards something that is a choice is entirely different than being bigoted towards something that people are not able to choose.

[riflearm3]

Buddy, you either choose to bend over or you don’t so don’t tell me you can’t choose if your a homo  or not. You can also choose to wear a tampon or wear a jock strap.. your free to choose what you want so don’t tell me it’s not a choice!!  I won’t listen to your liberal BS talking points. It’s people like you that keep bigotry alive and well in all of your “almighty” standards you claim to have!

 That is a well articulated, well thought-out, and grammatically correct argument. Please tell me that you went to wvu?

 Did you choose to be straight? The very first time you can remember being attracted to, presumably, a female, did you choose to be attracted to her? Of course not. You just were naturally. If you ask any homo the same question, they will tell you the same thing: they didn't choose who they were or were not attracted to. It was just as natural to them as your attraction was to you.

 Your comment about choosing to be sexually active ("bending over") is not the litmus test of gay or straight. You can be celibate and still be gay. You can be celibate and still be straight.

 If anyone doesn't believe in evolution, this guy is the perfect proof that humans are somehow related to neanderthals.


 

According to your argument then homosexuals should not be given special treatment or protection...according to you religion is a choice but so is being a homosexual...there has not been one proven scientific universally accepted gene that determines if someone is gay or not...

 There are numerous scientifically accepted studies that show homosexuality can be seen in differences in genes. These have shown that having genes on certain chromosomes exponentially increases the chance of the person being gay. It also accounts for why identical twins (share exact genes) - even those separated at birth and raised separately  - have a significantly higher chance of both being gay or straight compared to the regular human population (non identical twins).

[BHFIOHIO]

many humans posess Neanderthal DNA..its called modern science.

[riflearm3]

many humans posess Neanderthal DNA..its called modern science.

 Uhh, yeah. That was the point of me saying that particular poster was proof that humans and neanderthals have a common ancestor.

[Ovaltine Jenkins]

Buddy, you either choose to bend over or you don’t so don’t tell me you can’t choose if your a homo  or not. You can also choose to wear a tampon or wear a jock strap.. your free to choose what you want so don’t tell me it’s not a choice!!  I won’t listen to your liberal BS talking points. It’s people like you that keep bigotry alive and well in all of your “almighty” standards you claim to have!

Wow!  That post certainly speaks for itself.  And please, stop using the term "liberal" to justify your neanderthal opposition to someone's opinion.  I'm a liberal Dem and am not a racial or religious bigot.  Most of my encounters with bigotry as the member of a minority group and the Catholic church have come from the right.

Now can we get back on topic.

[svherd]

Amazing how those who profess to have open minds and be enlightened, seem to have the most issues with others opinions. Who’d a thunk it.

[2xBison]

why is. this %^&* on here? 

[wasbarryb]

That is a well articulated, well thought-out, and grammatically correct argument. Please tell me that you went to wvu?

+1

That was perfect, you didn't need the rest of the post.