Liberty University
Punishment
Crime
Safety
Responses: 3
2
2
0
Point of order; you're initial comment is misleading, nowhere in the story is it said that LU has paid anything to DOE. Only that a fine had been assessed, and LU disagrees. You've put the cart before the horse, in an attempt to disparage LU and their actions.
(2)
(0)
COL Randall C.
Rick, you're correct that in the report it doesn't say anything about Liberty having paid, but the settlement agreement* between the DOE and Liberty University clearly spells out that LU accepted fault for the upheld findings and commits to paying the fine.
As part of the accepted agreement:
● The University agrees that it will pay the Department a fine in the amount of $14,000,000.00 (Fourteen Million Dollars and No Cents) (“the Fine”) and that it will spend $2,000,000.00 (Two Million Dollars and No Cents) (“the Clery Act expenditures”) during the two-year period of post-review monitoring on campus safety improvements and compliance enhancements in addition to funds already budgeted for Clery Act operations.
● The University specifically acknowledges that by entering into this Agreement it is waiving its right to appeal any fine that could be initiated by the Department based on the preliminary and final findings set forth in the PRR and FPRD.
For its part, the DOE considered the matter closed, won't pursue any additional actions, and acknowledges that LU has implemented remedial measures. Additionally, both parties are in agreement about a two-year monitoring phase to ensure full compliance.
What Liberty HAS said is that while they acknowledge the administrative and procedural problems they had, the DOE used methods and calculations that were “drastically different from their historic treatment of other universities.”
Personally I have no comment one way or another on that though as I have no clue how the DOE has treated other universities historically.
-----------------------------------------
* https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/20240305-liberty-settlement.pdf
As part of the accepted agreement:
● The University agrees that it will pay the Department a fine in the amount of $14,000,000.00 (Fourteen Million Dollars and No Cents) (“the Fine”) and that it will spend $2,000,000.00 (Two Million Dollars and No Cents) (“the Clery Act expenditures”) during the two-year period of post-review monitoring on campus safety improvements and compliance enhancements in addition to funds already budgeted for Clery Act operations.
● The University specifically acknowledges that by entering into this Agreement it is waiving its right to appeal any fine that could be initiated by the Department based on the preliminary and final findings set forth in the PRR and FPRD.
For its part, the DOE considered the matter closed, won't pursue any additional actions, and acknowledges that LU has implemented remedial measures. Additionally, both parties are in agreement about a two-year monitoring phase to ensure full compliance.
What Liberty HAS said is that while they acknowledge the administrative and procedural problems they had, the DOE used methods and calculations that were “drastically different from their historic treatment of other universities.”
Personally I have no comment one way or another on that though as I have no clue how the DOE has treated other universities historically.
-----------------------------------------
* https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/20240305-liberty-settlement.pdf
(1)
(0)
I see nothing in the Department of Education's report about the university discouraging students from reporting crimes other than a notice at the bottom where it is listed as an example of items where it is a violation - "Students, parents, employees, and other stakeholders—including members of the public—can file complaints about suspected Clery Act violations; examples include a school misreporting crime statistics, failing to publish an Annual Security Report, discouraging individuals from reporting assaults, and failing to issue timely warnings about threats to safety."
Looking through the 11 findings in the DOE's statement*, they are regarding procedural actions and administrative record keeping that aren't in compliance with the Clery Act reporting requirements, NOT that the university "discouraged people from reporting campus crimes" as claimed in the news report.
While the DOE identified many administrative issues and likely a lack of proper training, there is no indication of an attempt to suppress reporting of crimes or any intent of deception on part of the institution (if there were, then my attitude would be to nail them to the wall).
--------------------------------------
* https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-imposes-14-million-fine-against-liberty-university-clery-act-violations
Looking through the 11 findings in the DOE's statement*, they are regarding procedural actions and administrative record keeping that aren't in compliance with the Clery Act reporting requirements, NOT that the university "discouraged people from reporting campus crimes" as claimed in the news report.
While the DOE identified many administrative issues and likely a lack of proper training, there is no indication of an attempt to suppress reporting of crimes or any intent of deception on part of the institution (if there were, then my attitude would be to nail them to the wall).
--------------------------------------
* https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-imposes-14-million-fine-against-liberty-university-clery-act-violations
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC Eugene Chu A Christian organization wouldn't do that... they should have to report them as well as the fine...
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google