A recent study by the American Principles Project (APP) points to a disproportionate focus by the Biden administration's Department of Education on Christian and career colleges regarding enforcement actions.

According to Fox News, the report accuses the Department of Education of ideologically biased enforcement, significantly targeting faith-based and career-oriented institutions.

The APP's findings show that these schools, which make up less than 10% of the U.S. student body, accounted for nearly 70% of the administrative penalties and fines issued. This has raised concerns about fairness and the criteria used for such enforcement actions.

The report highlights several notable cases, including those of Grand Canyon University (GCU) and Liberty University. Both institutions faced severe financial penalties that exceeded fines levied against larger universities involved in high-profile sexual abuse scandals.

Specifically, the Department of Education fined GCU a staggering $37.7 million in November of the previous year, based on allegations that the school misled students about the costs associated with its doctoral programs. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona explicitly accused GCU of predatory practices, and the school is challenging this characterization in court.

Significant Legal Battles And Enforcement Explained

The legal confrontation peaked when GCU contested the Department of Education's refusal to recognize its non-profit status. Eventually, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld GCU's non-profit designation, a pivotal victory for the university, leading to the case being sent back to the Department for reassessment.

The comparison of fines is particularly striking. APP reports that the average penalty for a Christian school cited under the Clery Act — which requires colleges to report crimes on campus — was $815,000, whereas other public and private institutions faced an average penalty of $228,571 for similar violations.

This disparity feeds into the broader allegations of APP against the Biden administration. According to Jon Schweppe, APP Policy Director, there appears to be a concerted effort by the administration to use regulatory agencies to target institutions that are not aligned ideologically with the current government's policies.

Wide Discrepancy In Penalties Spur Controversy

Schweppe has voiced strong criticisms, stating, "The Democrats have weaponized every part of the federal government to target their opponents for the past four years." He further emphasized, "While major assaults from agencies like the Department of Justice have captured most of the headlines, we should not overlook similarly corrupt efforts in other agencies as well."

The APP's accusations go beyond financial penalties. The report also asserts that at least 12 Christian colleges faced heavy fines or total bans from receiving federal student aid—penalties no Ivy League school has encountered under similar circumstances. "The unfair targeting of these institutions has been egregious, and it must stop immediately," Schweppe added.

In response, a Department of Education spokesperson rejected these claims, stating, "A school’s religious affiliation or non-profit status has no bearing on our oversight and enforcement actions. Our top priority is to protect safety and academic opportunity for all students at institutions of higher education. The data in the APP report pushes a false narrative by distorting information the Department released publicly."

Implications of Enforcement Practices on Educational Institutions

This controversy has sparked a broader discussion about the role of regulatory bodies in overseeing educational institutions and whether ideological biases influence administrative decisions. It has also raised questions about the potential impacts on the academic and operational capacity of targeted schools.

The debate continues as both sides present their arguments and schools like GCU seek to recover from the reputational and financial damage inflicted by these high-profile cases. As legal proceedings continue, the educational and political communities closely watch to see how these issues will be resolved and what precedents they might set for future regulatory actions.

For now, the situation remains tense, with substantial disagreements about the interpretation of actions and data, leaving the educational sector in a state of uncertainty about the balance between regulatory oversight and institutional autonomy.