Liberty University Online: Master’s Degree Debt Factory

Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the United States, has built an educational empire by promoting conservative values and offering flexible online degree programs to hundreds of thousands of students. But behind the pious branding and patriotic marketing lies a troubling pattern: Liberty University Online has become a master’s degree debt factory, churning out credentials of questionable value while generating billions in student loan debt.

From Moral Majority to Mass Marketing

Founded in 1971 by televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr., Liberty University was created to train “Champions for Christ.” In the 2000s, the school found new life through online education, transforming from a small evangelical college into a mega-university with nearly 95,000 online students, the vast majority of them enrolled in nontraditional and graduate programs.

By leveraging aggressive digital marketing, religious appeals, and promises of career advancement, Liberty has positioned itself as a go-to destination for working adults and military veterans seeking master's degrees. But this rapid expansion has not come without costs — especially for the students who enroll.

A For-Profit Model in Nonprofit Clothing

Though technically a nonprofit, Liberty University operates with many of the same profit-driven incentives as for-profit colleges. Its online programs generate massive revenues — an estimated $1 billion annually — thanks in large part to federal student aid programs. Students are encouraged to take on loans to pay for master’s degrees in education, counseling, business, and theology, among other fields. Many of these programs are offered in accelerated formats that cater to working adults but often lack the rigor, support, or job placement outcomes associated with traditional graduate schools.

Federal data shows that many Liberty students, especially graduate students, take on substantial debt. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard, the median graduate student debt at Liberty can range from $40,000 to more than $70,000, depending on the program. Meanwhile, the return on investment is often dubious, with low median earnings and high rates of student loan forbearance or default.

Exploiting Faith and Patriotism

Liberty’s marketing strategy is finely tuned to appeal to Christian conservatives, homeschoolers, veterans, and working parents. By framing education as a moral and patriotic duty, Liberty convinces students that enrolling in an online master’s program is both a personal and spiritual investment. Testimonials of “calling” and “purpose” are common, but the financial realities can be harsh.

Many students report feeling misled by promises of job readiness or licensure, especially in education and counseling fields, where state licensing requirements can differ dramatically from what Liberty prepares students for. Others cite inadequate academic support and difficulties transferring credits.

 The university spends heavily on recruitment and retention, often at the expense of student services and academic quality.

Lack of Oversight and Accountability

Liberty University benefits from minimal federal scrutiny compared to for-profit schools, largely because of its nonprofit status and political connections. The institution maintains close ties to conservative lawmakers and was a vocal supporter of the Trump administration, which rolled back regulations on higher education accountability.

Despite a series of internal scandals — including financial mismanagement, sexual misconduct cover-ups, and leadership instability following the resignation of Jerry Falwell Jr. — Liberty has continued to expand its online presence. Its graduate programs, particularly in education and counseling, remain cash cows that draw in federal loan dollars with few checks on student outcomes.

A Cautionary Tale in Christian Capitalism

The story of Liberty University Online is not just about one school. It reflects a broader trend in American higher education: the merging of religion, capitalism, and credential inflation. As more employers demand advanced degrees for mid-level jobs, and as traditional institutions struggle to adapt, schools like Liberty have seized the opportunity to market hope — even if it comes at a high cost.

For students of faith seeking upward mobility, Liberty promises a path to both spiritual and professional fulfillment. But for many, the result is a diploma accompanied by tens of thousands in debt and limited economic return. The moral reckoning may not be just for Liberty University, but for the policymakers and accreditors who continue to enable this lucrative cycle of debt and disillusionment.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue to investigate Liberty University Online and similar institutions as part of our ongoing series on higher education debt, inequality, and regulatory failure.

Liberty University Targeting Vets for Robocollege Master's Degrees

Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the world, has built an educational empire by promoting conservative values and offering flexible online degree programs to hundreds of thousands of students. But behind the pious branding and patriotic marketing lies a troubling pattern: Liberty University Online has become a master’s degree debt factory, churning out credentials of questionable value while generating billions in student loan debt.

Massive Debt Load: New Federal Data

The Higher Education Inquirer has recently received a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response (25-01939-F) confirming the staggering financial footprint of Liberty University’s loan-driven model. According to the data, more than 290,000 Liberty University student loan debtors collectively owe over $8 billion in federal student loan debt.

This figure places Liberty among the nation’s top producers of student debt, especially at the graduate level. The data underscores the scale of Liberty’s online operation—and raises serious concerns about the value students are receiving in return for their investment.

From Moral Majority to Mass Marketing

Founded in 1971 by televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr., Liberty University was created to train “Champions for Christ.” In the 2000s, the university reinvented itself through online education, growing from a modest evangelical college into a global mega-university. Today, nearly 95,000 students are enrolled online—most of them nontraditional learners pursuing graduate credentials in fields like education, business, counseling, and theology.

This transformation was powered by digital marketing, religious rhetoric, and direct appeals to working adults and veterans. But what has emerged is a high-volume, low-engagement “robocollege” model that has led to massive student debt and mixed outcomes.

A For-Profit Model in Nonprofit Clothing

Though it operates as a nonprofit, Liberty functions much like a for-profit college. Its online programs generate an estimated $1 billion in annual revenue, mostly through federal student aid and military education benefits.

Students are funneled into fast-tracked, eight-week master’s programs that promise convenience but often fail to deliver quality or post-graduate opportunity. According to U.S. Department of Education data, median graduate student debt at Liberty ranges from $40,000 to $70,000, while returns on investment—measured in earnings and job placement—are questionable at best.

Robocollege for Warriors

Liberty markets itself as a military-friendly institution and has enrolled over 40,000 military-affiliated students in recent years. Through patriotic branding and targeted discounts, the university appeals to service members seeking affordable, faith-based education.

However, Liberty does not extend military tuition discounts to LGBTQ spouses or partners, effectively excluding same-sex families from benefits offered to heterosexual military couples. This discriminatory policy contradicts federal nondiscrimination principles but has gone unchallenged by any federal oversight agency, including the U.S. Department of Education, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

The absence of accountability underscores a broader pattern: religious institutions like Liberty continue to receive billions in public funds while applying selective moral frameworks to exclude marginalized communities.

Liberty’s discriminatory practices add insult to injury for LGBTQ military students and their families, who are asked to sacrifice for their country but denied equal access to educational support.

Automated, Ideologically Charged Learning

Liberty’s academic model is highly automated and often superficial. Online coursework typically consists of textbook readings, quizzes, and templated discussion posts—with little direct instruction or feedback from faculty. Many students report that religious ideology is embedded in even technical fields, from business to engineering.

“They put scripture in every assignment—sometimes where it makes no sense,” said one former student.
“It’s more like an indoctrination pipeline than a graduate school,” added a military spouse who withdrew from the program.

Liberty’s online aviation program came under fire in 2023 when the VA suspended GI Bill payments due to quality concerns. Veterans were left stranded mid-program, forced to pause their education or self-fund tuition after losing federal support.

A Dual Identity: Race and Class Divides

Liberty’s racial and socioeconomic divides are stark. Its residential campus in Lynchburg, Virginia, is 74% white, with just 4% of students identifying as Black, 5% Latino, and 2% Asian or Pacific Islander. The number of African American students on campus has declined in recent years, even as national college demographics diversify.

This imbalance reflects Liberty’s historical roots: founder Jerry Falwell Sr. publicly defended racial segregation and opposed civil rights legislation in the 1960s. While Liberty has distanced itself from these positions rhetorically, the legacy remains visible in the composition and culture of the on-campus student body.

In contrast, Liberty University Online (LUO) is much more diverse. In 2017, only 51% of LUO undergraduates were white, and 15.4% identified as Black. Many LUO students are older, work full-time, and represent the multiracial, working-class America that Liberty’s campus culture does not reflect or represent.

Exploiting Faith and Patriotism

Liberty’s marketing presents education as a spiritual and patriotic calling—especially appealing to military families and first-generation students seeking purpose and stability. But behind the inspirational messaging lies a hard financial truth: many students are left with heavy debt and degrees that may not align with licensure standards or employer expectations.

Liberty pours resources into advertising and retention but spends comparatively little on faculty pay, student advising, or academic support. Complaints about misleading information, difficulty transferring credits, and job placement struggles are common.

Lack of Oversight, Political Protection

Despite numerous scandals—including leadership resignations, sexual misconduct coverups, and allegations of financial mismanagement—Liberty continues to operate with limited regulatory scrutiny. Its nonprofit status and political influence, particularly within conservative circles, shield it from the kind of oversight faced by for-profit colleges.

During the Trump administration, higher education accountability was dramatically weakened, giving Liberty and similar institutions near-total freedom to expand unchecked. That permissive environment remains largely intact.

A Cautionary Tale in Christian Capitalism

Liberty University’s rise reveals a troubling convergence of religion, profit, and political power. What’s marketed as moral education is often little more than credential inflation funded by public debt. And for students of color, LGBTQ families, and military veterans, the promises of upward mobility too often end in disappointment—and financial ruin.

With more than 290,000 Liberty student loan debtors owing over $8 billion, the scale of Liberty’s impact on the nation’s student debt crisis is undeniable. Yet its discriminatory practices, especially against LGBTQ military families, go unanswered by federal authorities.

For an institution claiming to train "Champions for Christ," Liberty’s actions tell a different story—one where profit is paramount, and equity is an afterthought.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue investigating Liberty University and similar institutions, particularly those profiting from vulnerable populations under the banners of faith, freedom, and flag.

Liberty University in the Trump Era

Responding to changing demographics, beliefs, and norms, US religious colleges must reflect what's popular and profitable: Christian evangelism, prosperity theology, contemporary technology, and international outreach. Like other areas of higher education, Christian higher education must focus on the realities of revenues, expenses, and politics, as well as religious dogma.  

While a number of Christian colleges and seminaries close each year, and many more face lower enrollment and financial woes, one conservative Christian university stands out for robust enrollment, stellar finances, and political pull: Liberty University. There are other older schools, particularly Catholic schools with more wealth and prestige, but that's changing. And it could be argued that those schools are religious in a historical sense rather than a contemporary sense.    

Two Liberties

Liberty University is an educational behemoth, and has the advantage of being a nonprofit school that uses proprietary marketing strategies. The brick-and-mortar school, with an enrollment of less than 20,000 students, is predominantly straight, white, and middle-class. The school also has a strict honor code called the Liberty Way, which prohibits activity that may be counter to conservative Christian beliefs.

The growing campus includes a successful law school that serves as a pipeline to Christian businesses and conservative government. The Jesse Helms School of Government and the ban of a Young Democrats club reflect its conservative principles. Liberty also houses the Center for Creation Studies and Creation Hall, with a museum to promote a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible, to include the stories of God and the beginning of time, Adam and Eve, Noah and the Ark, and Moses and the Ten Commandments. 

Liberty University Online (LUO), an international Christian robocollege with about 100,000 students, is more diverse in terms of age, race/ethnicity, nationality, and social class. The online school is thriving financially, and excess funds from the operation help fund the university's growing infrastructure, amenities, and institutional wealth. Liberty spends millions on marketing and advertising online, using its campus as a backdrop. And those efforts result in manifold profits.  

Liberty History

Liberty University was founded in 1971 by Jerry Falwell Sr., a visionary in Christian marketing and promotion, who used technology the technology of the time--television--to gain adherents and funders. Fawell's vision was not to create a new seminary, but to educate evangelical Christians to be part of the fabric of professional society, as lawyers, doctors, teachers, and engineers.

Responding to the political and cultural winds, Falwell Sr. moved away from his segregationist roots as he built his church Liberty University. It was not easy going for Liberty in the early years, which had to rely on controversial supporters. The minister also used the abortion question, the homosexual question, and conservative Christian evangelism in Latin America and Africa to energize his flock and to create important political alliances during the Ronald Reagan era. Information about those years are available at the Jerry Falwell Library Archives.

During the Reagan era and beyond, Falwell's idea of a Moral Majority proposed that Church and State should not be divided, and those thoughts of a strong Christian theocracy have spread for more than four decades. 

In March 2016, Jerry Falwell Jr. referred to presidential candidate Donald Trump as America's King David. And under the first Trump Administration, the school gained favor from the President. 

Under Donald Trump's second term, Liberty University should be expecting to get closer to that goal of a Christian theocracy. For the moment, LU has the political power and the economic power that few other schools have to enjoy.

Related links:

Jerry Falwell Library Digital Archives 

Dozens of Religious Schools Under Department of Education Heightened Cash Monitoring 

Liberty University fined record $14 million for violating campus safety law (Washington Post) 

How Liberty University Built a Billion Dollar Empire Online (NY Times) 

What caused 70 US universities to arrest protesting students while many more did not?

Earlier this year, the New York Times reported that about 3100 people had been arrested at pro-Palestinian campus protests across the US, noting that 70 schools had arrested or detained people. In addition to arrests, a varying degree of force has been used, including the use of targeted police surveillance, tear gas, and batons. 

After those arrests, some schools expelled those protesting students, banned them from campuses, and denied them degrees. Schools also established more onerous policies to stop occupations and other forms of peaceful protest. A few listened to the demands of their students, which included the divestment of funds related to Israel's violent occupation of Palestine. 

What can students, teachers, and other university workers learn from these administrative policies and crackdowns? The first thing is to find out what data are out there, and then what information is missing, and perhaps deliberately withheld.

Documenting Campus Crackdowns and Use of Force

The NY Times noted mass arrests/detentions at UCLA (271), Columbia (217), City College of New York (173), University of Texas, Austin (136), UMass Amherst (133), SUNY New Paltz (132), UC Santa Cruz (124), Emerson College (118), Washington University in Saint Louis (100), Northeastern (98), University of Southern California (93), Dartmouth College (89), Virginia Tech (82), Arizona State University (72), SUNY Purchase (68), Art Institute of Chicago (68), UC San Diego (64), Cal Poly Humboldt (60), Indiana University (57), Yale University (52), Fashion Institute of Technology (50), New School (43), Auraria Campus in Denver (40), Ohio State University (38), NYU (37), Portland State University (37), University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, (36), University of Pennsylvania (33), George Washington University (33), Stony Brook University (39), Emory University (28), University of Virginia (27), Tulane University (26), and University of New Mexico (16). In many cases, court charges were dropped but many students faced being barred from campuses or having their diplomas withheld.

The Crowd Counting Consortium at Harvard University's Kennedy School has also been keeping data on US protests and their outcomes from social media, noting that "protest participants have been injured by police or counter-protesters — sometimes severely — about as often as protesters have caused property damage, much of which has been limited to graffiti." Their interactive dashboard is here.  

According to a Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) database, out of 258 US universities that held protests, only 60 schools resorted to arrests.* Why did these schools, many name-brand schools, use arrests (and other forms of threats and coercion) as a tactic while others did not? A number of states reported no arrests, particularly in the US North, South, and West.

Analyzing the Data For Good Reasons

There appear to be few obvious answers (and measurable variables) to accurately explain this multi-layered phenomenon, something the media have largely ignored. But that does not mean that this cannot be explained to a better extent than the US media have explained it.

It's tempting to look at a few interesting data points (e.g. according to FIRE, Cornell University and Harvard did not have arrests, and neither did Baylor, Liberty University, and Hillsdale College. Six University of California schools had arrests but three did not. And all of the schools that came before the US House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee examining antisemitism (Harvard, Penn, MIT) had arrests after their appearances. The Arizona House had similar hearings in 2023 and 2024 regarding antisemitism and their two biggest schools, Arizona State University and the University of Arizona, had arrests.

Missing Data and Analysis

What else can we notice in this pattern about the administrations involved, the trustees, major donors, or the student body? How much pressure was there from major donors and trustees and can this be quantified? Anecdotally, there were a few public reports from wealthy donors who were unhappy with the protests. Who were those 3100 or so students and teachers who were arrested and what if any affiliations did they have? How many of the students who were arrested Jewish, and what side were they on? How many of these schools with arrests had chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Students Supporting Israel? How many schools with these student interest groups did not resort to arrests?

How much communication and coordination was there within schools and among schools, both by administrations and student interest groups? What other possible differences were there between the arrest group and the non-arrest group and are they measurable?

What other dependent variables besides arrests could be or should be be measured (e.g. convictions, fines and sentences, students expelled or banned from campus)? What will become of those who were arrested? Will they be part of a threat database? Will this interfere with their futures beyond higher education? Is it possible to come up with a path analysis or networking models of these events, to include what preceded the arrests and what followed? And what becomes of the few universities that operate more like fortresses today than ivory towers? How soon will they return to normal?


Arrest Group (Source: FIRE)*

4 Arizona State University Yes
8 Barnard College Yes
41 Columbia University Yes
46 Dartmouth College Yes
57 Emory University Yes
59 Florida State University Yes
60 Fordham University Yes
64 George Washington University Yes
78 Indiana University Yes
94 Massachusetts Institute of Technology Yes
105 New Mexico State University Yes
106 New York University Yes
110 Northeastern University Yes
111 Northern Arizona University Yes
112 Northwestern University Yes
115 Ohio State University Yes
123 Portland State University Yes
124 Princeton University Yes
140 Stanford University Yes
142 Stony Brook University Yes
155 Tulane University Yes
156 University at Buffalo Yes
161 University of Arizona Yes
163 University of California, Berkeley Yes
165 University of California, Irvine Yes
166 University of California, Los Angeles Yes
169 University of California, San Diego Yes
170 University of California, Santa Barbara Yes
171 University of California, Santa Cruz Yes
176 University of Colorado, Denver Yes
177 University of Connecticut Yes
181 University of Florida Yes
182 University of Georgia Yes
184 University of Houston Yes
187 University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Yes
189 University of Kansas Yes
194 University of Massachusetts Yes
197 University of Michigan Yes
198 University of Minnesota Yes
206 University of New Hampshire Yes
207 University of New Mexico Yes
208 University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill Yes
209 University of North Carolina, Charlotte Yes
212 University of Notre Dame Yes
215 University of Pennsylvania Yes
216 University of Pittsburgh Yes
220 University of South Carolina Yes
221 University of South Florida Yes
222 University of Southern California Yes
225 University of Texas, Austin Yes
226 University of Texas, Dallas Yes
231 University of Utah Yes
233 University of Virginia Yes
236 University of Wisconsin, Madison Yes
242 Virginia Commonwealth University Yes
243 Virginia Tech University Yes
247 Washington University in St Louis Yes
248 Wayne State University Yes
257 Yale University Yes

Non-arrest Group (Source: FIRE)*

1 American University No
2 Amherst College No
3 Appalachian State University No
5 Arkansas State University No
6 Auburn University No
7 Bard College No
9 Bates College No
10 Baylor University No
11 Berea College No
12 Binghamton University No
13 Boise State University No
14 Boston College No
15 Boston University No
16 Bowdoin College No
17 Bowling Green State University No
18 Brandeis University No
19 Brigham Young University No
20 Brown University No*
21 Bucknell University No
22 California Institute of Technology No
23 California Polytechnic State University No
24 California State University, Fresno No
25 California State University, Los Angeles No
26 Carleton College No
27 Carnegie Mellon University No
28 Case Western Reserve University No
29 Central Michigan University No
30 Chapman University No
31 Claremont McKenna College No
32 Clark University No
33 Clarkson University No
34 Clemson University No
35 Colby College No
36 Colgate University No
37 College of Charleston No
38 Colorado College No
39 Colorado School of Mines No
40 Colorado State University No
42 Connecticut College No
43 Cornell University No
44 Creighton University No
45 Dakota State University No
47 Davidson College No
48 Denison University No
49 DePaul University No
50 DePauw University No
51 Drexel University No
52 Duke University No
53 Duquesne University No
54 East Carolina University No
55 Eastern Kentucky University No
56 Eastern Michigan University No
58 Florida International University No
61 Franklin and Marshall College No
62 Furman University No
63 George Mason University No
65 Georgetown University No
66 Georgia Institute of Technology No
67 Georgia State University No
68 Gettysburg College No
69 Grinnell College No
70 Hamilton College No
71 Harvard University No*
72 Harvey Mudd College No
73 Haverford College No
74 Hillsdale College No
75 Howard University No
76 Illinois Institute of Technology No
77 Illinois State University No
79 Indiana University Purdue University No
80 Iowa State University No
81 James Madison University No
82 Johns Hopkins University No
83 Kansas State University No
84 Kent State University No
85 Kenyon College No
86 Knox College No
87 Lafayette College No
88 Lehigh University No
89 Liberty University No
90 Louisiana State University No
91 Loyola University, Chicago No
92 Macalester College No
93 Marquette University No
95 Miami University No
96 Michigan State University No
97 Michigan Technological University No
98 Middlebury College No
99 Mississippi State University No
100 Missouri State University No
101 Montana State University No
102 Montclair State University No
103 Mount Holyoke College No
104 New Jersey Institute of Technology No
107 North Carolina State University No
108 North Dakota State University No
109 Northeastern Illinois University No
113 Oberlin College No
114 Occidental College No
116 Ohio University No
117 Oklahoma State University No
118 Oregon State University No
119 Pennsylvania State University No
120 Pepperdine University No
121 Pitzer College No
122 Pomona College No
125 Purdue University No
126 Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute No
127 Rice University No
128 Rowan University No
129 Rutgers University No
130 Saint Louis University No
131 San Diego State University No
132 San Jose State University No
133 Santa Clara University No
134 Scripps College No
135 Skidmore College No
136 Smith College No
137 Southern Illinois University, Carbondale No
138 Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville No
139 Southern Methodist University No
141 Stevens Institute of Technology No
143 SUNY at Albany No
144 SUNY College at Geneseo No
145 Swarthmore College No
146 Syracuse University No
147 Temple University No
148 Texas A&M University No
149 Texas State University No
150 Texas Tech University No
151 The College of William and Mary No
152 Towson University No
153 Trinity College No
154 Tufts University No
157 University of Alabama, Birmingham No
158 University of Alabama, Huntsville No
159 University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa No
160 University of Alaska No
162 University of Arkansas No
164 University of California, Davis No
167 University of California, Merced No
168 University of California, Riverside No
172 University of Central Florida No
173 University of Chicago No
174 University of Cincinnati No
175 University of Colorado, Boulder No
178 University of Dayton No
179 University of Delaware No
180 University of Denver No
183 University of Hawaii No
185 University of Idaho No
186 University of Illinois, Chicago No
188 University of Iowa No
190 University of Kentucky No
191 University of Louisville No
192 University of Maine No
193 University of Maryland No
195 University of Memphis No
196 University of Miami No
199 University of Mississippi No
200 University of Missouri, Columbia No
201 University of Missouri, Kansas City No
202 University of Missouri, St Louis No
203 University of Nebraska No
204 University of Nevada, Las Vegas No
205 University of Nevada, Reno No
210 University of North Carolina, Greensboro No
211 University of North Texas No
213 University of Oklahoma No
214 University of Oregon No
217 University of Rhode Island No
218 University of Rochester No
219 University of San Francisco No
223 University of Tennessee No
224 University of Texas, Arlington No
227 University of Texas, El Paso No
228 University of Texas, San Antonio No
229 University of Toledo No
230 University of Tulsa No
232 University of Vermont No
234 University of Washington No
235 University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire No
237 University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee No
238 University of Wyoming No
239 Utah State University No
240 Vanderbilt University No
241 Vassar College No
244 Wake Forest University No
245 Washington and Lee University No
246 Washington State University No
249 Wellesley College No
250 Wesleyan University No
251 West Virginia University No
252 Western Michigan University No
253 Wheaton College No
254 Williams College No
255 Worcester Polytechnic Institute No
256 Wright State University No 

*Media sources indicate that in 2023, 2 graduate students were arrested at Harvard, and more than 40 people were arrested at Brown University. 

Related links:

Campus Protests, Campus Safety, and the Student Imagination 

Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)

Methods of Student Nonviolent Resistance

Wikipedia Community Documents Pro-Palestinian Protests on University and College Campuses

Dangerous Spaces: Sexual Assault and Other Forms of Violence On and Off Campus

One Fascism or Two?: The Reemergence of "Fascism(s)" in US Higher Education

A People's History of Higher Education in the US?

Letter to an incoming freshman

Faith vs. Geology: Pangaea and the Great Deluge Theory at Liberty University

In the early 20th century, German scientist Alfred Wegener introduced the idea of continental drift, proposing that Earth's continents were once joined in a massive supercontinent called Pangaea. Though initially dismissed, his theory gained traction in the 1960s with the emergence of plate tectonics—a unifying model that explains how Earth's outer shell is divided into moving plates. This theory, now a cornerstone of modern geology, posits that Pangaea began to break apart roughly 230 million years ago, eventually forming the continents we recognize today. The overwhelming evidence for this process includes matching fossils on different continents, corresponding rock formations, and patterns in ancient species distribution. Radiometric dating techniques support the conclusion that Earth is about 4.54 billion years old, a timescale that allows for the slow, natural processes responsible for shaping the planet.

In stark contrast, Liberty University's Center for Creation Studies offers an alternative interpretation of Earth’s history rooted in a literal reading of the Bible. Situated in the Rawlings School of Divinity’s Freedom Tower—the tallest building in Lynchburg, Virginia—the Center teaches students to understand science through the lens of Genesis. Its Great Deluge Theory, based on the biblical account of Noah's Flood, rejects the mainstream scientific consensus. Instead of accepting that Earth’s continents drifted apart over hundreds of millions of years, the Center asserts that many geological features, including fossil layers and sedimentary rock strata, were formed rapidly during a single global flood event just a few thousand years ago. Young Earth creationism, which underpins the curriculum, maintains that the planet is no older than 10,000 years, and that natural history can be fully explained through divine intervention.

The divergence between these views is more than a matter of interpretation—it reflects fundamentally different epistemologies. Plate tectonics is grounded in empirical research, the scientific method, and peer review. It invites scrutiny, thrives on testable hypotheses, and evolves in response to new evidence. In contrast, Liberty’s model begins with a predetermined conclusion: the Bible is historically and scientifically accurate in every detail. Evidence is selectively interpreted to fit this framework, and contradictory data—no matter how extensive—is either reinterpreted or dismissed. This approach aligns more closely with apologetics than with science.

While Liberty University positions its creationist program as a means to equip students to "contend for their faith," critics argue that it misrepresents scientific knowledge and undermines science education. By framing the Great Deluge as a viable scientific alternative to plate tectonics, the institution promotes a parallel academic universe in which faith-based doctrines masquerade as empirical conclusions. The implications go beyond the classroom. As Liberty-trained educators and policymakers enter the workforce, the divide between evidence-based science and theological worldviews has the potential to further erode public understanding of geology, biology, and climate science.

The tension between these two narratives—one driven by data and theory, the other by scripture and conviction—mirrors broader cultural and political divides in the United States. In this climate, Liberty University’s Great Deluge Theory stands not merely as a fringe belief but as part of an organized ideological project. It seeks to challenge the authority of secular science and replace it with a creationist worldview, reinforced by institutional power, strategic philanthropy, and media amplification through outlets like Fox News and Turning Point USA.

Pangaea remains a foundational concept in understanding Earth's deep past—a testament to scientific inquiry and intellectual perseverance. The Great Deluge Theory, by contrast, functions more as a religious counter-narrative, one that reveals the growing influence of Christian nationalism within certain sectors of U.S. higher education. At Liberty University, students are taught not only to question modern geology but to replace it with a model of the Earth shaped by divine catastrophe. In doing so, the institution asserts a theological vision of reality that stands in direct opposition to the scientific consensus.

This conflict raises urgent questions about the role of ideology in higher education and the future of scientific literacy in a society increasingly divided along epistemological lines.

---

Sources:

National Center for Science Education. “The Creationist Assault on Geology.” NCSE Reports.
https://ncse.ngo/creationist-assault-geology

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). “Geologic Time.”
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/geologic-time

Wegener, Alfred. The Origin of Continents and Oceans. Translated edition, Dover Publications, 1966.

Liberty University. “Center for Creation Studies.”
https://www.liberty.edu/academics/creationstudies/

Liberty University Rawlings School of Divinity. “Freedom Tower Overview.”
https://www.liberty.edu/divinity/freedom-tower/

Numbers, Ronald L. The Creationists: From Scientific Creationism to Intelligent Design. Harvard University Press, 2006.

Scott, Eugenie C. Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction. University of California Press, 2009.

Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth. TalkOrigins Archive.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

Lisle, Jason. The Ultimate Proof of Creation. Master Books, 2009. (Representative of Liberty-style apologetics)

Liberty Lost: A Stark Look at Faith, Power, and Reproductive Coercion at Liberty University

 In the new podcast Liberty Lost, journalist T.J. Raphael uncovers a deeply unsettling system operating within the bounds of one of America’s largest evangelical universities. Set in the heart of Lynchburg, Virginia, at Liberty University, the story centers around the Liberty Godparent Home—a little-known facility for pregnant teens with close institutional and ideological ties to the university founded by Jerry Falwell Sr.

What begins as a place of supposed refuge for young, unmarried women who become pregnant quickly reveals itself to be a pressure chamber for coerced adoption—wrapped in Christian fundamentalist dogma and amplified by the material incentives of access to a Liberty University education. For some girls, like Abbi, the protagonist of the podcast’s first episodes, the cost of obedience is not only personal but generational.

The podcast, released by Wondery and available on all major platforms, chronicles Abbi’s harrowing journey into the Liberty Godparent Home, where she’s isolated from her family and friends, counseled by religious figures with a clear agenda, and told in no uncertain terms that “God wants her baby to go to a more deserving Christian couple.” Behind the language of “choice” and “support,” the message is clear: parenting is discouraged, and adoption is moralized.

These adoptions are not only shaped by theology but by an implicit transaction. Girls who go through with adoption are more likely to receive full scholarships to Liberty University. Refuse, and they risk being cast aside—denied the academic support and financial stability promised by the institution. It’s a system in which teenage girls’ reproductive choices are entangled with Liberty’s brand of moral authority, educational opportunity, and patriarchal control.

Raphael carefully weaves together interviews with former residents, including those who’ve grown into adulthood haunted by the trauma of giving up their children. Their stories span decades, and together they paint a picture of a deeply entrenched culture of reproductive coercion masked as Christian charity. The podcast also traces how these practices—long thought to have faded after the peak of “maternity homes” in the 20th century—are resurging in post-Roe America. Liberty is not an outlier, but rather a flagship in a growing movement.

The implications for higher education are chilling. Liberty University, already known for its regressive social policies and political entanglements, appears to be operating a pipeline where vulnerable teens are funneled through a reproductive system designed to serve religious ideology and institutional branding, rather than their own well-being. It’s not just a question of faith—it’s a question of ethics, autonomy, and what happens when educational institutions leverage opportunity against obedience.

Liberty Lost should serve as a call to investigate not just one university or one home, but an entire network of under-regulated faith-based institutions profiting—spiritually and materially—from the forced sacrifices of young women. At a time when the nation’s reproductive rights are under siege, the podcast is both a warning and a demand: to listen, to document, and to hold accountable those who wield education as a weapon.

For those interested in the intersections of religion, power, and reproductive justice in U.S. higher education, Liberty Lost is essential listening—and a sobering reminder that the struggle for bodily autonomy does not end at the gates of a university. It may very well begin there.

Liberty University in Black and White

Liberty University, one of the largest Christian universities in the world, presents a striking contrast between its largely white residential campus and a more diverse, working-class population studying online. This divide highlights ongoing questions about race, access, and culture in American higher education—especially in religious institutions that promote traditional values while navigating a changing demographic and social landscape.

A Whiter Campus

As of 2021, Liberty’s Lynchburg, Virginia, residential campus remains overwhelmingly white. Seventy-four percent of students living and studying on campus are white, with only 4% identifying as Black or African American, 5% as Latino, and 2% as Asian or Pacific Islander. Less than 1% of residential students identify as Native American. In contrast to the national trend of increasing diversity on college campuses, Liberty appears to be growing whiter. In fact, the number of African American students on campus has declined in recent years, raising concerns about how welcoming the university is to students of color.

This demographic imbalance is not new. Liberty University has a long history of racial segregation and discrimination, particularly in its formative years under founder Jerry Falwell Sr., who defended segregation in the 1960s and opposed civil rights legislation. While Liberty’s public stance has changed over the decades, the legacy of those positions still casts a long shadow.

A More Diverse Virtual World

Meanwhile, Liberty University Online (LUO) paints a different picture. In 2017, only 51% of its undergraduate population identified as white, compared to 15.4% who were Black or African American. Hispanic and Latino students made up 1.7%, and students of two or more races, 2.3%. A significant 26.5% of LUO students were categorized as “race/ethnicity unknown,” potentially obscuring additional diversity. These students come from all 50 states, Washington, D.C., and 86 countries, with more than 30,000 military students and over 850 international students among them.

LUO students are also disproportionately older, more likely to be working full-time, and often seeking degrees for career advancement or personal growth rather than the traditional “college experience.” Many are first-generation college students or part of the educated working-class navigating life through faith, family, and financial constraints. In contrast to the traditional campus, LUO's virtual classrooms are where Liberty more closely resembles the multiracial and socioeconomically diverse America it often claims to serve.

The Racial and Class Divide

This bifurcation between Liberty’s on-campus and online populations underscores a larger tension within the university: a cultural and racial divide that mirrors the broader fissures in U.S. society. The residential campus, steeped in conservative Christian traditions and a homogeneous student body, promotes a culture aligned with white evangelicalism. Meanwhile, its online division serves a more varied student population—many of whom are drawn to Liberty for its affordability, flexibility, and religious identity, but may not share in the campus culture or feel represented by its leadership and branding.

Reports of problems faced by Black students on campus—including concerns over campus climate, lack of representation among faculty, and curriculum that minimizes racial history—suggest that Liberty’s commitment to diversity is uneven at best. While the university has made modest gestures toward inclusion, critics argue that these efforts are often performative and fail to address systemic issues rooted in the institution’s founding principles.

Conclusion

Liberty University’s dual identity—as a white-dominated, conservative campus and a more diverse, online workforce training hub—raises difficult but necessary questions about race, class, and the role of religion in higher education. For an institution that claims to train “Champions for Christ,” the challenge remains whether it can reconcile these differences or if the divide will only grow starker in the years ahead.

Google, Amazon Web Services, and the Robocollege Gold Rush

The rise of robocolleges—massive, data-driven online universities like Southern New Hampshire University (SNHU), Liberty University Online, and the University of Phoenix—has not only reshaped the American higher education landscape but also become a lucrative revenue stream for Big Tech giants like Google and Amazon Web Services (AWS). These corporations, often thought of in the context of search engines or online retail, are quietly cashing in on the transformation of higher education into a sprawling digital enterprise.

Google profits primarily through its dominant advertising platform. Robocolleges spend tens of millions of dollars annually on Google Ads, targeting prospective students through highly refined search engine marketing. When a person types “online college” or “fastest bachelor’s degree,” Google’s algorithms serve up ads from SNHU, Liberty, University of Phoenix, and similar institutions, often above organic search results. These schools bid aggressively on search terms, particularly those that resonate with working adults, single parents, and veterans—populations that are more vulnerable to misleading advertising and frequently take on large student loans with low completion rates. A 2018 New York Times report revealed that the University of Phoenix spent $27 million on Google ads in a single year. SNHU and Liberty have since increased their digital marketing budgets dramatically, much of it funneled into the Google ecosystem.

But Google’s relationship with robocolleges goes far beyond advertising. Through its YouTube platform, also part of Alphabet Inc., the company monetizes education-related content and ads aimed at vulnerable populations. Whether viewers are watching videos about job interviews or financial survival, they’re often served high-pressure ads from online universities offering "flexible" degrees with "no SAT required." These targeted promotions generate both direct revenue and valuable behavioral data, which is used to optimize future advertising and extract more profit from the education market.

Amazon Web Services (AWS), the dominant player in cloud computing, profits from robocolleges in a different but equally impactful way. The University of Phoenix, for instance, migrated its entire infrastructure to AWS, entrusting Amazon with the storage and management of its student data, financial systems, and learning platforms. This move was framed as a way to increase efficiency and reduce costs, but it also locked a major for-profit university into the AWS ecosystem, with recurring fees that scale with student enrollment and data usage. Liberty University and other online-heavy institutions have also entered cloud partnerships with AWS and its competitors, making Amazon a key stakeholder in the delivery and surveillance of digital education.

The integration of Big Tech with robocolleges isn't just about services—it's about power. These tech platforms shape who gets seen and who remains invisible. Google's search and ad algorithms essentially control the public-facing narrative of higher education, prioritizing those who pay the most, not those who offer the best outcomes. Meanwhile, Amazon’s infrastructure ensures that these institutions can operate at scale with minimal human oversight, using cloud tools to automate enrollment, course delivery, and even student monitoring.

This alliance between Big Tech and robocolleges has significant implications for students, many of whom take on large debts in pursuit of degrees that may have limited labor market value. The same students who are recruited through Google ads often end up attending classes hosted on AWS servers, their tuition dollars indirectly supporting some of the richest corporations on the planet. As regulators begin to scrutinize student outcomes and loan defaults, the role of Google and Amazon in propping up this system remains largely invisible—and unaccountable.

What we are witnessing is not just the digitization of higher education, but its full-scale commercialization, driven by two of the most powerful technology firms in the world. In this new regime, education becomes a pipeline for data extraction, ad revenue, and cloud profits—where the student is no longer the customer, but the product.

Sources:
The New York Times, “How Google Took Over the Classroom” (2017)
The Chronicle of Higher Education, “Online Education’s Marketing Machine” (2020)
The Markup, “Google Is Earning Big From Predatory For-Profit Colleges” (2020)
University of Phoenix Newsroom, “University of Phoenix Moves to AWS” (2019)
SNHU Financial Statements (2020-2023)
Liberty University Marketing Disclosures (Various)
Alphabet Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. Annual Reports (2023-2024)

Robocollege Update

 

Robocolleges are a mix of for-profit and non-profit online colleges, both secular and Christian.  Their focus is on automation and reduced costs, particularly labor costs:

Instruction is delivered through automated Learning Management Systems (LMS) and online platforms, relying less on professors and more on pre-recorded lectures and automated grading. Even support staff are being replaced by chatbots.  

While some qualified individuals might be involved, educational content is often developed by large teams with varying expertise, potentially sacrificing quality for cost-effectiveness.

Marketing and advertising continue to be costly. But targeting marketing (e.g. targeting military service members and veterans, teachers, nurses, and government workers in low-income neighborhoods) can improve cost efficiency. 

Robocolleges offer degrees with a wide range of value to consumers (return on investment versus debt).  For people who need a degree (or an advanced degree) to play the game in government and medicine, these credentials may have value. 

Competency-based education and credits for life experience reduce the number of courses some students need to graduate.  Servicemembers going to Purdue Global, for example, can get an AA with as few as five college courses and a BS with as little as seven additional courses.

Cheating is probably easier for online students who are so inclined and whether these companies care is not really known.  

Southern New Hampshire (SNHU) continues to be the growth and efficiency leader, with the highest enrollment, more than 160,000 students. SNHU is also experimenting with artificial intelligence to reduce labor costs. In addition, SNHU works with Guild (aka Guild Education), which recruits workers from Walmart, Target, Waste Management, and other large employers.  

Grand Canyon (for-profit) and Liberty University (non-profit) target Christians for online credentials.  But oppressive debt is a concern with some of their programs. Social mobility for students is subpar.  

Purdue University Global and University of Arizona, Global Campus are two former for-profit colleges now owned by state universities. Information about their financial status is sketchy. Like SNHU, Purdue Global works with Guild to recruit working folks.  Purdue Global owes its online program manager. Kaplan Education, about $128 million.  Arizona Global has had financial difficulties which have affected the University of Arizona's bottom line.  

The University of Phoenix has returned to profitability by reducing instruction and student services by $100 million a year and legal costs by $50 million a year.  Consumers continue to file fraud complaints by the tens of thousands.  And debt is an enormous problem with former students.  It's not apparent whether Phoenix can maintain such enormous profits, but its future as a non-profit affiliated with the University of Idaho may reduce its tax burden and legal liabilities. 

Here are the most recent numbers from the US Department of Education College Navigator:

American Intercontinental University: 89 full-time instructors for 14,333 students.
American Public University System has 332 F/T instructors for 48,688 students.
Aspen University has 27 F/T instructors for 7,386 students.
Capella University: 180 F/T for 39,727 students.
Colorado State University Global: 40 F/T instructors for 9,565 students.
Colorado Technical University: 55 F/T instructors for 24,808 students.
Devry University online: 61 F/T instructors for 26,384 students.
Grand Canyon University has 550 F/T instructors for 101,816 students.*
Liberty University: 735 F/T for 96,709 students.*
Purdue University Global: 337 F/T instructors for 45,125 students.
South University: 41 F/T instructors for 7,707 students.
Southern New Hampshire University: 130 F/T for 164,091 students.
University of Arizona Global Campus: 122 F/T instructors for 34,190 students.
University of Maryland Global: 177 F/T instructors for 55,838 students.
University of Phoenix: 80 F/T instructors for 88,891 students.
Walden University: 235 F/T for 42,312 students.

*Most F/T faculty serve the ground campuses that profit from the online schools. 

 

Related links:

Robocolleges, Artificial Intelligence, and the Dehumanization of Higher Education (2023)

AI-ROBOT CAPITALISTS WILL DESTROY THE HUMAN ECONOMY (Randall Collins, 2023)

Guild Education: Enablers of Anti-Union Corporations and Subprime College Programs (2021)

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents" (2019)

The Higher Education Assembly Line (2019)

 

 

 

 

Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center and the Battle Lines of a New American Divide

As the United States continues to fracture along political and cultural lines, Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center (SFFC) is not just observing the divide—it is actively working to widen it. Positioned at the vanguard of Christian Nationalist thought, the SFFC promotes a vision of the nation where faith is law, politics is pulpit, and pluralism is cast as a spiritual threat.

In recent years, the center has ramped up rhetoric that casts the American culture war as a righteous struggle between biblical Christians and a “godless elite.” Nowhere is this more evident than in its escalating campaign against Planned Parenthood, which the center presents not just as a healthcare provider, but as the embodiment of neoliberal moral decay.

From Cultural Critique to Wartime Rhetoric

The SFFC has turned its media platforms into a moral war room, producing daily content that frames modern American politics in biblical terms—light versus darkness, good versus evil, Christians versus cultural Marxists. The center regularly targets institutions like public universities, Hollywood, and Washington bureaucracies as complicit in the erosion of Christian civilization.

A recent SFFC campaign, for example, lambasted Planned Parenthood with claims that it is not merely offering reproductive services, but “profiting from death.” Referencing the organization’s most recent annual report, the center emphasized that Planned Parenthood had performed over 402,000 abortions in a single year while pulling in more than $2 billion in revenue—a “record-breaking” number, according to the SFFC.

The Anti-Abortion Crusade as a Flashpoint

In SFFC messaging, this abortion data is used not just to critique Planned Parenthood, but to indict the American system as complicit in mass murder—what it describes as a “death movement” funded by taxpayers. The center argues that federal support for Planned Parenthood indirectly subsidizes abortion, even if laws technically prohibit direct funding for the procedure.

“This organization,” an SFFC statement reads, “which has long received hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars annually, can sustain itself without public funding. Yet it continues to benefit from the federal trough while expanding its abortion services.”

The center draws a direct connection between this funding and what it sees as a systemic betrayal of America’s moral core. By painting Planned Parenthood as both a “political and cultural powerhouse” and a “merchant of death,” the SFFC not only undermines trust in public institutions—it rallies students and followers to view America’s future as dependent on destroying these institutions altogether.

Indoctrination, Not Education

While most university-affiliated think tanks encourage debate and pluralism, the SFFC operates more like an ideological factory. Its leaders are unapologetic in their intent to raise up a generation of “culture warriors” who will go into politics, media, and ministry with a mandate to reshape society in a narrowly defined Christian image.

The anti-abortion campaign is also used to collect data and recruit young activists. On the SFFC website, readers are invited to respond to a poll:

Do you think young people are becoming more conservative?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Email Address: ___________

A disclaimer informs users that “completing this poll entitles you to receive communications from Liberty University free of charge,” and that by participating, they agree to receive ongoing messaging rooted in the SFFC’s worldview.

Christian Nationalism and the Call for a Parallel America

By centering its messaging on abortion, gender identity, religious liberty, and “globalist control,” the SFFC is laying the ideological groundwork for a future in which two Americas coexist uneasily—or collide outright. One America, in this vision, is neoliberal and secular, ruled by technocrats and activists. The other is God-ordained, led by a “remnant” of faithful patriots.

This worldview leaves no room for compromise. It promotes defunding Planned Parenthood not as a policy choice, but as a moral imperative—a “necessary step toward reclaiming the soul of our nation.” Any opposition to this vision is treated as treasonous, immoral, and aligned with “demonic forces.”

The University’s Role in Civil Conflict

In past decades, higher education was viewed as a site for civic formation and critical thinking. But with institutions like Liberty University turning their academic platforms into partisan strongholds, the American university system is becoming a battlefield.

The Standing for Freedom Center is not merely part of the conversation—it is actively inciting a form of civil conflict. Its campaigns seek to delegitimize not just opposing arguments, but entire political structures. And in doing so, they push the country closer to a clash not just of ideas, but of identities.

Conclusion: Toward a Theology of Division

By promoting a view of the United States as a nation under siege by secular forces, the SFFC turns policy debates into spiritual warfare. Whether on abortion, education, or civil rights, every issue is recast as a battle for the soul of the country.

This theology of division, dressed in the language of liberty and moral clarity, may resonate with young evangelicals who feel alienated from mainstream culture. But its long-term effect may be the erosion of the shared civic space that makes pluralistic democracy possible.

As the 2026 election cycle accelerates, and as institutions continue to splinter, the question is no longer whether Liberty University is shaping the culture war—it’s how much longer the country can avoid the kind of civil fracture the Standing for Freedom Center seems eager to see fulfilled.

---

Do you have information about educational and religious institutions shaping political conflict? Contact the Higher Education Inquirer confidentially at gmcghee@aya.yale.edu.

“Wypipo” and Higher Education: Unpacking Race, Privilege, and Power in U.S. Colleges

What Does “Wypipo” Mean?

“Wypipo” mimics the pronunciation of “white people” but carries critical connotations. It is often used to call out behaviors associated with whiteness, including racial entitlement, cultural tone-deafness, and systemic blindness to inequities. The term serves as both a cultural critique and an assertion of resistance against normalized white dominance.

Higher Education and “Wypipo”: The Landscape

U.S. colleges and universities remain sites where whiteness shapes admissions, curriculum, governance, and culture. Predominantly white institutions (PWIs) continue to reinforce racial disparities despite diversity initiatives (Espenshade & Radford, 2009; Alon, 2015). Curricula center Eurocentric perspectives, while faculty and administrative leadership remain disproportionately white (Turner, González, & Wong, 2011).

Charlie Kirk, Turning Point USA, and Liberty University: Conservative “Wypipo” Powerhouses

Among the most prominent embodiments of “Wypipo” influence in higher education are conservative activist Charlie Kirk and his organization, Turning Point USA (TPUSA). Founded in 2012, TPUSA has become a major force in conservative campus organizing, advancing a right-wing political agenda centered on opposition to what it terms “woke” ideology and critical race theory.

Charlie Kirk’s activism includes extensive social media campaigns, campus chapters, and large-scale conferences that mobilize predominantly white student bases. His rhetoric often frames racial justice efforts as threats to free speech and traditional values, casting “wokeness” as a form of indoctrination (Cowan, 2020). Kirk’s influence extends into shaping public policy and funding flows, leveraging connections with major donors and political figures.

Liberty University, founded by evangelical leader Jerry Falwell Sr., is a key institutional partner in this conservative higher education ecosystem. Liberty positions itself as an alternative to mainstream universities, promoting Christian conservative values with significant political and financial resources. Its student body and leadership largely reflect a white evangelical demographic that aligns with Kirk’s messaging. Together, TPUSA and Liberty University represent a coordinated cultural and political push that sustains whiteness as a dominant force in higher education debates (Harriot, 2021).

Michael Harriot’s Insights on “Wypipo” and Power

Journalist and cultural critic Michael Harriot has explored how whiteness functions not only as racial identity but as a system of social control. In his work, Harriot emphasizes the performative and often self-interested nature of white activism and the ways white power adapts to preserve itself, including in educational settings (Harriot, 2017).

Harriot’s analyses illuminate how figures like Kirk and institutions like Liberty University deploy cultural narratives that obscure systemic racism while mobilizing racial resentment. This dynamic reinforces “Wypipo” dominance under the guise of protecting free expression or traditional values, often at the expense of marginalized students and faculty.

How “Wypipo” Reveals Structural Inequities

The use of “Wypipo” challenges higher education stakeholders to recognize whiteness as an active, often unmarked, structure of privilege. Critical race theory frames whiteness as a form of property and power that shapes institutional policies, resource distribution, and cultural norms (Harris, 1993; Lipsitz, 1998).

This perspective calls on predominantly white faculty, administrators, and students to examine their roles in perpetuating inequities, even unconsciously (DiAngelo, 2018). It also critiques diversity efforts that focus on surface inclusion without addressing deeper power imbalances (Ahmed, 2012).

Controversy and Necessity of the Term

While “Wypipo” can be provocative and controversial, it forces a confrontation with realities often softened or ignored in polite discourse. Scholars argue that such language is essential for disrupting entrenched whiteness and fostering honest conversations about race and power (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017).

Toward Equity Beyond “Wypipo”

True progress requires dismantling systemic racism in admissions, curriculum, governance, and campus climate. This means elevating marginalized voices, redistributing power, and holding institutions accountable (Gasman, Kim, & Nguyen, 2011; Harper, 2012). Programs rooted in critical race pedagogy and institutional change show promise for fostering inclusive educational spaces (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002).

---

References

• Ahmed, S. (2012). On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Duke University Press.

• Alon, S. (2015). Race, gender, and the stratification of college science majors. Sociology of Education, 88(3), 259–280.

• Bowen, W. G., & Bok, D. (1998). The Shape of the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions. Princeton University Press.

• Cowan, T. (2020). The culture war on campus: Turning Point USA and conservative student activism. Journal of Higher Education Politics and Policy, 22(1), 45–62.

• Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2017). Critical Race Theory: An Introduction (3rd ed.). NYU Press.

• DiAngelo, R. (2018). White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism. Beacon Press.

• Espenshade, T. J., & Radford, A. W. (2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. Princeton University Press.

• Gasman, M., Kim, J., & Nguyen, T.-H. (2011). Engaging faculty of color in the academy: Lessons from multiple perspectives. The Journal of Higher Education, 82(2), 152–182.

• Harper, S. R. (2012). Race without racism: How higher education researchers minimize racist institutional norms. The Review of Higher Education, 36(1), 9–29.

• Harriot, M. (2017). The Case for Reparations—and Why White America’s Resistance Is About Power. The Root.

• Harris, C. I. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106(8), 1707–1791.

• hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. Routledge.

• Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491.

• Leonardo, Z. (2004). The Color of Supremacy: Beyond the Discourse of 'White Privilege'. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 36(2), 137–152.

• Lipsitz, G. (1998). The Possessive Investment in Whiteness: How White People Profit from Identity Politics. Temple University Press.

• Sander, R. (2012). Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It’s Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won’t Admit It. Basic Books.

• Smith, W. A., Allen, W. R., & Danley, L. L. (2007). “Assume the position…you fit the description”: Psychosocial experiences and racial battle fatigue among African American male college students. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(4), 551–578.

• Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.

• Sue, D. W., Capodilupo, C. M., Torino, G. C., Bucceri, J. M., Holder, A. M. B., Nadal, K. L., & Esquilin, M. (2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62(4), 271–286.

• Turner, C. S. V., González, J. C., & Wong, K. (2011). Faculty women of color: The critical nexus of race and gender. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 4(4), 199–211.

Sexual Criminals in US Higher Education: A Brief History

Sexual abuse in US higher education has persisted for decades across multiple institutional domains. Perpetrators have included doctors, professors, athletic staff, administrators, fraternity members, and students. While some high-profile cases have drawn national attention, many remain buried under confidentiality agreements, weak oversight, and institutional reluctance to act against powerful individuals and organizations.

Medical and athletic departments have been at the center of several major cases. At the University of Southern California (USC), Dr. George Tyndall, a campus gynecologist, was accused by hundreds of women of sexual abuse during exams spanning three decades. Despite internal complaints dating back to the 1990s, USC allowed Tyndall to remain employed until 2016. The university later agreed to a $1.1 billion settlement in 2021, the largest sexual abuse settlement in higher education history.

At Michigan State University (MSU), Dr. Larry Nassar sexually abused hundreds of women and girls, including Olympic athletes, while serving as a team physician. Reports were repeatedly ignored or minimized by athletic staff and administrators. In 2018, Nassar was sentenced to 40 to 175 years in prison. MSU paid $500 million in settlements to survivors.

Pennsylvania State University saw one of the most publicized cover-ups in collegiate sports when former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky was convicted in 2012 of sexually abusing boys over a 15-year period. High-ranking university officials, including President Graham Spanier and Athletic Director Tim Curley, were later convicted for failing to report allegations. The scandal led to resignations, criminal charges, and a significant financial settlement.

The University of Michigan faced a similar reckoning. Dr. Robert Anderson, a campus physician, was accused by more than 1,000 former students and athletes of sexual abuse between 1966 and 2003. The university acknowledged that numerous complaints were not acted upon and agreed to a $490 million settlement in 2022.

Columbia University reached a $236 million settlement in 2023 with hundreds of patients of Dr. Robert Hadden, a gynecologist accused of sexually abusing women over several decades. Hadden, affiliated with Columbia and NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital, had previously received limited sanctions and continued treating patients despite multiple complaints.

Beyond medical and athletic departments, faculty and administrators have also engaged in sexual misconduct. At Harvard University, government professor Jorge Domínguez was accused of harassment spanning four decades. Multiple internal warnings went unheeded. Domínguez retired only after public pressure and a university investigation confirmed a pattern of misconduct and institutional failure.

Louisiana State University (LSU) was investigated by the U.S. Department of Education following reports of systemic failures to respond to sexual misconduct complaints, including those involving football players and fraternity members. A 2021 report by the law firm Husch Blackwell detailed widespread noncompliance with Title IX procedures and administrative inaction.

Fraternities represent another enduring source of sexual violence and institutional evasion. Greek organizations have been linked to a disproportionately high number of sexual assault reports on campuses. A 2007 sociological study by Armstrong, Hamilton, and Sweeney documented how alcohol-fueled fraternity parties serve as a structural context for what they called "party rape." Despite such findings, enforcement has remained limited.

At Baylor University, a 2016 scandal exposed multiple incidents of sexual assault involving football players and fraternity affiliates. The university hired the law firm Pepper Hamilton, whose report concluded that Baylor had failed to implement Title IX protections. Several university leaders, including President Ken Starr, were forced to resign.

Ohio State University faced its own reckoning when more than 350 men accused team doctor Richard Strauss of sexual abuse from the 1970s through the 1990s. The university confirmed that coaches and administrators were aware of complaints but failed to act. OSU has paid over $60 million in settlements.

The fraternity Sigma Alpha Epsilon (SAE) has faced repeated allegations of sexual misconduct and hazing across numerous campuses, including the University of Oklahoma and Louisiana State University. Although some chapters were suspended, most eventually returned, often with limited structural changes.

At the University of Southern California, the Sigma Nu fraternity was suspended in 2021 after multiple students reported being drugged and assaulted at fraternity events. Student protests followed, demanding greater accountability and questioning the role of fraternities on campus. However, no permanent action was taken against Greek life.

Phi Delta Theta was implicated in the 2017 hazing death of LSU freshman Max Gruver, alongside other reports of sexual misconduct involving chapter members. Gruver’s death, caused by forced alcohol consumption, led to criminal charges and civil litigation, but the fraternity was not banned permanently.

The University of Michigan, University of Virginia, and Columbia University have all faced scrutiny over fraternity-related assaults. At UVA, the controversial and later-retracted 2014 Rolling Stone article “A Rape on Campus” sparked national attention, but also backlash. Nonetheless, the story accelerated broader examinations of sexual assault within Greek life.

Some religious institutions have also been implicated. A 2021 ProPublica investigation into Liberty University found that administrators had discouraged sexual assault victims from reporting incidents and in some cases penalized them under the school’s conduct codes. Liberty settled related lawsuits for $14 million and remains under federal investigation.

Federal laws such as Title IX and the Clery Act require institutions to report and address sexual misconduct, but enforcement is inconsistent. Many institutions use non-disclosure agreements and confidential settlements to manage liability without public accountability. Survivors report that grievance processes are often retraumatizing, with few consequences for perpetrators.

Advocates have called for mandatory public reporting of misconduct cases, independent oversight of campus adjudication, and restrictions on the use of NDAs in sexual misconduct settlements. Some have proposed the creation of a national registry for faculty and staff found responsible for misconduct—similar to systems used in K-12 education—but no such registry currently exists.

The prevalence of sexual abuse in higher education—whether committed by faculty, doctors, athletic staff, or fraternity members—reflects institutional priorities that often place reputation and revenue above student and employee safety. While some institutions have taken steps toward transparency and reform, systemic change remains limited.

Sources
The New York Times. (2021). "USC Agrees to Pay $1.1 Billion to Settle Gynecologist Abuse Claims."
ESPN. (2018). "Larry Nassar sentenced to 40 to 175 years."
NPR. (2012). "Jerry Sandusky Sentenced To 30 To 60 Years For Sex Abuse."
Detroit Free Press. (2022). "University of Michigan to settle sexual abuse lawsuits for $490 million."
The New York Times. (2023). "Columbia to Pay $236 Million in Settlements Over Gynecologist’s Abuse."
Harvard Crimson. (2021). "Domínguez Investigation Finds 40 Years of Sexual Misconduct, Institutional Failures."
USA Today. (2021). "LSU mishandled sexual misconduct complaints."
American Sociological Review. (2007). “Sexual Assault on Campus: A Multilevel, Integrative Approach to Party Rape,” Armstrong, Hamilton, Sweeney.
The Atlantic. (2014). "The Dark Power of Fraternities."
CNN. (2017). "LSU Student Dies in Hazing Incident."
Rolling Stone. (2014, Retracted). “A Rape on Campus.”
Columbia Journalism Review. (2015). “The Lessons of Rolling Stone.”
ProPublica. (2021). “The Liberty Way.”
Chronicle of Higher Education. (2022). “After USC Fraternity Suspensions, Students Push for Greek Life Abolition.”
Inside Higher Ed. (2021). “Fraternity and Sorority Misconduct: Policy Gaps and Institutional Avoidance.”
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2024). “Open Title IX Investigations in Postsecondary Institutions.”
North American Interfraternity Conference. (2023). Public Statements on Campus Regulation.