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 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

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.

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.

The Growth of "RoboColleges" and "Robostudents"

In a previous Higher Education Inquirer article, I presented frightening full-time faculty numbers at some large online universities which I call "robocolleges."  Full-time faculty at these robocolleges, in fact, are nearly nonexistent. Bear in mind that all of them are regionally accredited, the highest level of institutional accreditation, and the list includes well-known public university systems as well as for-profit ones.  

Robocolleges have de-skilled instruction by paying teams of workers, some qualified and some not, to write content, while computer programs perform instructional and management tasks. Learning management systems with automated instruction programs are known by different names and their mechanisms are proprietary.  As professor jobs are deskilled, tasks can be farmed out at reduced costs.  

Besides the human content creators who may be given instructional titles, other staff members at robocolleges are paid to communicate with students regarding their progress. The assumption is that managing work this way significantly reduces costs, and it does, at least in the short and medium terms.  However, instructional costs are frequently replaced by marketing and advertising expenses to pitch the schools to prospective students and their families.  Companies like EducationDynamics and Guild Education have filled the niche of promoting robocolleges to workers at a reduced cost but their overall impact is minimal.  

Meanwhile,  companies like Chegg profit from this form of learning, helping students game the system in greater numbers, in essence creating robostudents.  

The business model in higher education for reducing labor power and faculty costs is not reserved to for-profit colleges.  Community colleges also rely on a small number of full-time faculty and armies of low-wage contingent labor.  

In some cases, colleges and universities, including many brand name schools, utilize outside companies, online program managers (OPMs), to run their online programs, with OPMs like 2U taking up as much as 60 percent of the revenues.  OPMs can perform a variety of jobs, but are best known for their work in enrollment and retention.  Prospective students may believe they are talking to representatives of a particular university when in fact they are talking to someone from an outside source.  Noodle has disrupted the OPM model by selling their services ala carte, but only time will tell whether it has an impact, or whether schools will merely find less costly outsourced servicers.  

Outsourcing higher education has been a reality in US higher education for decades. And automation is also part of education, as it should, when it performs menial tasks, such as taking roll and doing preliminary work to determine student cheating.  It's likely that more schools will become more robotic in nature to reduce organizational expenses.  But what are the long-term consequences with long-term student outcomes, when automation is used to perform higher level tasks, and when outsourced individuals act in the name of brand name colleges?  

To get a small glimpse of this robocollege phenomenon, these schools cumulatively have about 3000 full-time instructors for more than a half-million students.  

American Intercontinental University: 51 full-time instructors for about 8,700 students.

American Public University System has 345 F/T instructors for more than 50,000 students. 

Aspen University has 34 F/T instructors for about 9,500 students.  

Capella University: 216 F/T for about 38,000 students.

Colorado State University Global: 34 F/T instructors for 12,000 students.

Colorado Technical University: 59 F/T instructors for 26,000 students.
Devry University online: 53 F/T instructors for about 17,000 students.

Grand Canyon University has 461 F/T instructors for 103,000 students.*  
Liberty University: 1072 F/T for more than 85,000 students.*
Purdue University Global: 346 F/T instructors for 38,000 students.

South University: 0 F/T instructors for more than 6000 students.

Southern New Hampshire University: 164 F/T for 104,000 students.

University of Arizona Global Campus: 194 F/T instructors for about 35,000 students.
University of Maryland Global: 193 F/T instructors for 60,000 students.

University of Phoenix: 127 F/T instructors for 96,000 students.

Walden University: 206 F/T for more than 50,000 students.

*Most of these full-time instructors are faculty at the physical campuses.  

Robocolleges 2025

Overall, enrollment numbers for online robocolleges have increased as full-time faculty numbers have declined. Four schools now have enrollment numbers exceeding 100,000 students.  

Here's a breakdown of the key characteristics of robocolleges:

• Technology-Driven: Robocolleges heavily utilize online platforms, pre-recorded lectures, automated grading systems, and limited human interaction.
• Focus on Profit: These institutions often prioritize generating revenue over providing a high-quality educational experience.
• Aggressive Marketing: Robocolleges frequently employ aggressive marketing tactics to attract students, sometimes with misleading information.
• High Tuition Costs: They often charge high tuition fees, leading to significant student debt.
• Limited Faculty Interaction: Students may have limited access to faculty members for guidance and support.
• Questionable Job Placement Rates: Graduates of robocolleges may struggle to find employment in their chosen fields.

Concerns:

• Student Debt Crisis: The high tuition costs and potential for low job placement rates contribute to the student debt crisis.
• Quality of Education: The emphasis on technology and limited human interaction can raise concerns about the quality of education students receive.
• Ethical Considerations: The aggressive marketing tactics and potential for misleading students raise ethical concerns.

Here are Fall 2023 numbers (the most recent numbers) from the US Department of Education College Navigator:

Southern New Hampshire University: 129 Full-Time (F/T) instructors for 188,049 students.*
Grand Canyon University 582 F/T instructors for 107,563 students.*
Liberty University: 812 F/T for 103,068 students.*
University of Phoenix: 86 F/T instructors for 101,150 students.*
University of Maryland Global: 168 F/T instructors for 60,084 students.
American Public University System: 341 F/T instructors for 50,187 students.
Purdue University Global: 298 F/T instructors for 44,421 students.
Walden University: 242 F/T for 44,223 students.
Capella University: 168 F/T for 43,915 students.
University of Arizona Global Campus: 97 F/T instructors for 32,604 students.
Devry University online: 66 F/T instructors for 29,346 students.
Colorado Technical University: 100 F/T instructors for 28,852 students.
American Intercontinental University: 82 full-time instructors for 10,997 students.
Colorado State University Global: 26 F/T instructors for 9,507 students.
South University: 37 F/T instructors for 8,816 students.
Aspen University 10 F/T instructors for 5,195 students.
National American University 0 F/T instructors for 1,026 students

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

Related links:

Wealth and Want Part 4: Robocolleges and Roboworkers (2024) 

Southern New Hampshire University: America's Largest Robocollege Facing Resistance From Human Workers and Student Complaints About Curriculum (2024)

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)

List of Schools with Strong Indicators of Misconduct, Evidence for Borrower Defense Claims

Here (below) is a list of schools where there are strong indicia of misconduct, per the Department of Education and/or the Department of Justice. 

Student loan debtors who have attended these schools, and believe they were defrauded, are encouraged to file Borrower Defense to Repayment claims if they haven't already. 

More than 750,000 Borrower Defense fraud claims have been filed, and tens of thousands have resulted in debt forgiveness. Folks can also join the r/BorrowerDefense group on Reddit for support and guidance.  

Alta Colleges, Inc. (Westwood)

• Westwood College

American Commercial Colleges, Inc.

• American Commercial College

American National University

• American National University

Ana Maria Piña Houde and Marc Houde

• Anamarc College

Anthem Education Group (International Education Corporation)

• Anthem College
• Anthem Institute

Apollo Group

• University of Phoenix
• Western International University

ATI Enterprises

• ATI Career Training Center
• ATI College
• ATI College of Health
• ATI Technical Training Center

Baker College

B&H Education, Inc.

• Marinello School of Beauty

Berkeley College (NY)

• Berkeley College

Bridgepoint Education

• Ashford University
• University of the Rockies

Capella Education Company (Strategic Education, Inc.)

• Capella University

Career Education Corporation

• American InterContinental University
• Briarcliffe College
• Brooks College
• Brooks Institute
• Collins College
• Colorado Technical University
• Gibbs College
• Harrington College of Design
• International Academy of Design and Technology
• Katharine Gibbs School
• Le Cordon Bleu
• Le Cordon Bleu College of Culinary Arts
• Le Cordon Bleu Institute of Culinary Arts
• Lehigh Valley College
• McIntosh College
• Missouri College of Cosmetology North
• Pittsburgh Career Institute
• Sanford‐Brown College
• Sanford‐Brown Institute
• Brown College
• Brown Institute
• Washington Business School
• Allentown Business School
• Western School of Health and Business Careers
• Ultrasound Diagnostic Schools
• School of Computer Technology
• Al Collins Graphic Design School
• Orlando Culinary Academy
• Southern California School of Culinary Arts
• California Culinary Academy
• California School of Culinary Arts
• Pennsylvania Culinary Institute
• Cooking and Hospitality Institute of Chicago
• Scottsdale Culinary Institute
• Texas Culinary Academy
• Kitchen Academy
• Western Culinary Institute

Center for Employment Training

• Center for Employment Training

Center for Excellence in Higher Education (CEHE)

• California College San Diego
• CollegeAmerica
• Independence University
• Stevens‐Henager

Corinthian Colleges, Inc.

• American Motorcycle Institute
• Ashmead College
• Blair College
• Bryman College
• Bryman Institute
• CDI College
• Duff's Business Institute
• Eton Technical Institute
• Everest
• Everest University Online
• Everest College Phoenix
• Florida Metropolitan University
• Georgia Medical Institute
• Heald College
• Kee Business College
• Las Vegas College
• National Institute of Technology
• National School of Technology
• Olympia Career Training Institute
• Olympia College
• Parks College
• Rochester Business Institute
• Sequoia College
• Tampa College
• Western Business College
• WyoTech

Computer Systems Institute

• Computer Systems Institute

Court Reporting Institute, Inc.

• Court Reporting Institute

Cynthia Becher

• La' James College of Hairstyling
• La' James International College

David Pyle

• American Career College
• American Career Institute

Delta Career Education Corporation

• McCann School of Business & Technology
• Miami‐Jacobs Career College
• Miller Motte Business College
• Miller‐Motte College
• Miller‐Motte Technical College
• Tucson College

DeVry

• American University of the Caribbean
• Carrington College
• Chamberlain University
• DeVry College of Technology
• Devry Institute of Technology
• DeVry University
• Keller Graduate School of Management
• Ross University School of Veterinary Medicine
• Ross University School of Medicine

EDMC/Dream Center

• Argosy University
• The Art Institute (including The Art Institute of Atlanta, The Art Institute of California, and more)
• Brown Mackie College
• Illinois Institute of Art
• Miami International University of Art & Design
• New England Institute of Art
• South University
• Western State University College of Law

Education Affiliates (JLL Partners)

• All‐State Career School
• Fortis College
• Fortis Institute

Edudyne Systems Inc.

• Career Point College

Empire Education Group

• Empire Beauty School

Everglades College, Inc.

• Everglades University
• Keiser University

FastTrain

• FastTrain

Full Sail University

Globe Education Network

• Globe University
• Minnesota School of Business

Graham Holdings Company (Kaplan)

• Bauder College
• Kaplan Career Institute
• Kaplan College
• Mount Washington College
• Purdue University Global

Grand Canyon Education, Inc.

• Grand Canyon University

Infilaw Holding, LLC

• Arizona Summit Law School
• Charlotte School of Law
• Florida Coastal School of Law

International Education Corporation

• Florida Career College
• United Education Institute

ITT Educational Services Inc.

• ITT Technical Institute

JTC Education, Inc.

• Gwinnett College
• Medtech College
• Radians College

Laureate Education, Inc

• Walden University

Leeds Equity Partners V, L.P.

• Florida Technical College
• National University College
• NUC University

Liberty Partners

• Concorde Career College
• Concorde Career Institute

Lincoln Educational Services Corporation

• International Technical Institute
• Lincoln College of Technology
• Lincoln Technical Institute

Mark A. Gabis Trust

• Daymar College

Mission Group Kansas, Inc.

• Wright Business School
• Wright Career College

Premier Education Group L.P.

• American College for Medical Careers
• Branford Hall Career Institute
• Hallmark Institute of Photography
• Hallmark University
• Harris School of Business
• Institute for Health Education
• Micropower Career Institute
• Suburban Technical School
• Salter College

Quad Partners LLC

• Beckfield College
• Blue Cliff College
• Dorsey College

Remington University, Inc. (Remington College)

• Remington College

Southern Technical Holdings, LLC

• Southern Technical College

Star Career Academy

• Star Career Academy

Strayer University

Sullivan and Cogliano Training Center, Inc.

• Sullivan and Cogliano Training Centers

TCS Education System

• Chicago School of Professional Psychology

Vatterott Educational Centers, Inc.

• Court Reporting Institute of St Louis
• Vatterott College

Wilfred American Education Corp.

• Robert Fiance Beauty Schools
• Robert Fiance Hair Design Institute
• Robert Fiance Institute of Florida
• Wilfred Academy
• Wilfred Academy of Beauty Culture
• Wilfred Academy of Hair & Beauty Culture

Willis Stein & Partners (ECA)

• Brightwood Career Institute
• Brightwood College
• New England College of Business and Finance
• Virginia College