Talk:Liberty University

Washington Post story about Clery Act compliance

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/10/03/liberty-university-clery-act/

Liberty University broke safety laws for years, government asserts

In preliminary findings, the Education Department says the Christian school underreported crimes and destroyed evidence. Administrators can appeal.

By Susan Svrluga

October 3, 2023

... The initial report on the school’s Clery Act compliance — which the university can respond to and dispute before the department makes a final determination — paints a picture of a university that discouraged people from reporting crimes, underreported the claims it received and, meanwhile, marketed its Virginia campus as one of the safest in the country.

Liberty failed to warn the campus community about gas leaks, bomb threats and people credibly accused of repeated acts of sexual violence — including a senior administrator and an athlete — according to the report, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Post....

“This is the single most blistering Clery report I have ever read. Ever,” said S. Daniel Carter, a campus safety consultant who reviewed a copy of the initial report obtained by The Post. Nbauman (talk) 22:07, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

More today -

• French, David (22 October 2023). "The Worst Scandal in American Higher Education Isn't in the Ivy League". The New York Times.

This one contains links to documentation elsewhere also.

Bluerasberry (talk) 20:09, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

"non-profit"?

LOL. I kinod of understand that this scam, mafia-like institution that has enriched its founders for many decades now is not described as such in the first sentence, but "non-profit"? Seriously??? --Anvilaquarius (talk) 13:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Zinski Case - Don't Autorevert

Added to the Zinski section. What was presented was an LGTP magazine's take on a complaint against a Christian university. Naturally this was completely unreliable and biased. I added the defence as written for CP. Feel free to tweak the phrasing, or discuss here, but please do not revert to an unreliable prejudiced single source. WP:EDITWAR 人族 (talk) 02:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We don't deadname people in Wikipedia. And we don't present a subject's courtroom defense as if it's fact in our own voice. ElKevbo (talk) 02:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia states not to use unreliable sources. An LGTP magazine's take is about as unreliable as you can get. Jonathan Zinski was hired for the job with LU then sacked when he violated his contractual agreements. To exclusively quote a pro-Zinski piece without the case having gone to trial or been decided is to turn Wikipedia into an advocate, not a source of knowledge. Since Zinki's status is fundamentally material to the case, and it was Jonathan that was fired, what I'll do is 'restore' my CP contribution but append it to the original section. I fundamentally disagree with what it claims, but will leave it to readers to decide how they can reconcile the conflict. I won't budge further on this though. 人族 (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Addendum: LU is listed as an evangelical Christian university which likely means transgenderism is not accepted as legitimate. How does deadname get reconciled with that? Assuming Wikipedia doesn't outright reject the legitimacy of that position you've 2 mutually exclusive claims - the original employed by LU and presumably only valid identity in their eyes, or the identity claimed and presented by the Advocate. I'm unclear on whether the law currently considers Zinski Jonathan or Ellenor.

The ALCU piece and complaint appears to be here: https://www.acluva.org/en/cases/zinski-v-liberty-university but it's slightly different to the Advocate piece and doubtless will be challenged in court. Per the ACLU piece LU hired Ellenor then fired her when it found out she identifies as trans and wanted to change her name with the cause being denying biological and chromosomal sex assigned at birth and conflict with Liberty's Doctrinal Statement. ACLU contend doctrine must comply with federal law, which risks making this a Constitution case. 人族 (talk)

MOS:DEADNAME is very clear. We are to use the "person's most recent expressed self-identification" which is Eleanor. There is no reason to assume The Advocate is an unreliable source. It is not listed as such on perennial sources, and there is no reason to exclude it here. glman (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd call the magazine's nature ipso facto evidence. No it is not listed as either reliable or unreliable. Most sources aren't.

ElKevbo your change is far more succinct than what I had. Not quite the same, but close enough I guess so thanks? I tweaked it to include the contract issue because it's not theology v law. That should suffice until a court resolution. 人族 (talk) 04:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Elite university

@Glman: Elite university? ROFLMAO. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

I reverted to a stable version from @ElKevbo - your total reversion re-introduced vandalism to the page friend. Do not template me over a content discussion. glman (talk) 15:08, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Lead Section

Hello folks, I'm noticing that the lead section is very long compared to other examples. Specifically, the 3rd and 4th paragraphs. Looking for advice on if anything should be changed. Here is what I'm noticing: - Some of the info in the 3rd paragraph feels like it belongs in another section. - The 4th paragraph has no citations (but some of the info is important). Similar articles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_California,_Berkeley) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pensacola_Christian_College) have much shorter lead sections. ExogenousSagacity (talk) 02:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to propose some changes but this university's history and reputation are more complex and varied than many other colleges and universities so it shouldn't be surprising if the lead section is a bit longer. And it's not out of line with the length of the lead section of many other articles about universities e.g., University of South Florida, University of Pennsylvania, Texas Tech University. ElKevbo (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

You're right. I guess the other universities I had looked at happened to be shorter. I'll suggest a change or two for the citations. Thanks! ExogenousSagacity (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

Disputed controversy section

@Giorgio, Destroyer of Brio: What is your objection or concern with the "Controversy" section of this article? (And please don't place templates like that in articles without an explanation or at least an edit summary that briefly summarizes your concern.) ElKevbo (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I'd like an answer to that too. There's nothing inherently POV with including well sourced information about controversial issues that may reflect poorly on the subject. Meters (talk) 00:30, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Giorgio, Destroyer of Brio (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the question.

My concern is that the current "Controversy" section functions more as a catch-all list of criticisms, allegations, and media reports than as a properly integrated part of the article. Per WP:CRIT and the guidance on controversy sections, such material is generally better handled by distributing significant, reliably sourced coverage into the relevant topical sections (history, academics, athletics, leadership, finances, etc.) rather than isolating it under a dedicated "Controversy" heading.

The present section risks giving undue weight to negative coverage and can read as a collection of grievances rather than neutral encyclopedic content. I therefore tagged it so the community can discuss whether the material should be retained in its current form, rewritten for better balance and integration, or dispersed.

Happy to discuss specific sourcing or restructuring suggestions. Giorgio, Destroyer of Brio (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Suggestions would be appreciated! In many, likely most, cases the broad idea of "controversy sections are a bad idea that concentrate negative information without broader context and balance" is a good and correct one. But in some instances a subject genuinely attracts so much controversy that a separate section begins to make sense just from an organizational standpoint (or, in the more extreme cases, a separate article). That is likely the case here. But if you have suggestions on how to incorporate this material into the rest of the article so it all makes sense for readers, please share them - they are very welcome! ElKevbo (talk) 01:53, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I think avoiding a dedicated "Controversy" or "Criticism" section is the better approach because it tends to concentrate negative material without sufficient context. Here, however, the volume and prominence of the coverage do make a separate section organizationally reasonable.

So to improve neutrality, I suggest renaming the section from "Controversy" to something less charged, such as "Issues" or "Legal issues." Which would better signal encyclopedic treatment rather than a list of grievances while still allowing the material to remain grouped for readability. Giorgio, Destroyer of Brio (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

So, you're saying that you think the material does belong in the article, and that it should be in one section, but you don't like the section being called "Controversies"? I'm not seeing that as a POV or neutrality issue. Meters (talk) 03:02, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

My point exactly. The term "controversy" is too charged. "Issues" would be more neutral. Giorgio, Destroyer of Brio (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree with renaming this. Scandals involving the founder, mishandling and coverups of of sexual assaults and other crimes, and a ranking "among the worst universities in the U.S. terms of free speech" warrant more than just "Issues". To me that's not a neutral header, it's whitewashing. Meters (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

As someone who has spent significant time recently editing this page, I actually agree somewhat with Giorgio's criticisms. All of the issues in the current criticism section deal with events that occurred during the very modern, very recent history of the school - about 2017-2024. To note, the controversy section covers the Founder's son and one time President, Jerry Jr., not Sr. I could see an argument being made for integrating everything into the modern history subheading under a possible sub-subheading of controversies there, but that would a) create a sub-subheading, which would just not look great or fit within general WP standards, and b) really overinflate the modern history section compared to the rest of the school's history. Willing to hear any suggestions as to that recommendation. Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 23:03, 4 October 2026 (UTC)