Talk:Benedict College

Controversy

The below text is moved from article to discussion page until citation information can be provided:

Benedict College has been subject to a series of problems which have nearly resulted in its losing its accreditation. The college instituted a grading policy in 2003 called Success Equals Effort designed to retain students by basing 60% of freshman grades, and 50% of sophomore grades solely on student effort, and not academic performance[1]. When several professors objected, two of them were fired, resulting in a rare censure of Benedict College by the American Association of University Professors. Additionally, its financial credit rating was lowered several times in 2006. A federal audit in 2005 revealed financial irregularities to the tune of $100 million, mostly in the funding of its pensions, and, in addition, the college was fined more than $600,000 due to problems with its student loan programs. The college is also subject to criticism because an entering freshman only has a 9% chance of earning a degree in four years, and only a 25% chance of graduating in six years. Should the college lose its accreditation, its students would be unable to obtain federal grants and loans.

- Absolon S. Kent (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE 2020

Randomly found this and accepted the challenge. The one cited link from Capitalism Magazine was dead. I was able to find the revised URL for the same website. (I found an archived version of the original article from 2004.) The author of that editorial ("The Academic Halls of Stupidity: Success Equals Effort" BY WALTER WILLIAMS | OCT 8, 2004) references his facts as coming from coming "Columbia's The State newspaper (www.thestate.com, Aug. 20, 2004)" (presumably authored by Milwood Motley) and "The State (Sept. 22, 2004)" (assumed authored by Dr. William Gunn *****) - but there was no specific URL and neither a broad or specific keyword search of that website yielded anything from that year.(There is, however, a lot of content referring to the college starting a few years later, as seen here.) Williams' essay was distributed to other contemporary news websites but I did not locate any lost citation links. I did find a listing page of his early 2000s essay archives. It was not immediately evident that he wrote more about Benedict College. I did find a copy on his website. He also called the editorial "Believe it or not". It was published as is within a academic collection of his other essays that was published as "Liberty Versus the Tyranny of Socialism: Controversial Essays" by Hoover Institution Press, 2008 (Stanford University Stanford, California). The original citations are the same. [Digital Copy.]

I would like to think the editors at Hoover/Stanford would have fact checked before publication.

(But if that isn't enough....)

If someone has paid access, "Benedict College Fires 2 Professors Over Grades" By SCOTT SMALLWOOD SEPTEMBER 03, 2004 probably has some of the supporting facts from the missing State articles. With a great amount of detail about the events, the American Association of University Professors released "Academic Freedom and Tenure: Benedict College: A Supplementary Report on a Censured Administration". It does act as a credible resource to some of the controversial statements. The local news retains some of the reporting supporting some of the claims as well (here and here).

(*** Update) By lucky chance, I found the original August 2004 citation article from The State! Fri, Aug. 20, 2004 "2 Benedict professors fired over grade policy: Both had refused to follow requirement of rewarding students for effort" By CAROLYN CLICK.

The audit/student loan conflict is supported here and here. Then there is a published journal article discussing the teacher incident, and this has the outcome of the resulting lawsuit.

I hope the above is enough to warrant the information being returned and additional facts being added where relevant.Roxanne-snowden (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Re: Controversy

The controversy section is moved back to the main page with edits and now all facts should have correct citations.

Plinythemodern (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If the section was moved back and citations added, it is no longer true. See what I wrote above. Square one, I suppose.Roxanne-snowden (talk) 14:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Latin motto

What about the Latin motto on the seal, Veritas et Virtu (Truth and Virtue)? Does it have co-equal status with the English motto (A Force for Good in Society)? 2600:1004:B11F:926C:3D54:F483:E18D:E160 (talk) 02:55, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit-warring to change "plantation" to "forced-labor camp"

GregGregorino has begun an edit war to change "plantation" to "forced-labor camp" in the history section of this article. Unless he can cite sources that use that term, this appears to be an NPOV issue. And, of course, it's unacceptable to begin an edit war over this edit.

(On less substantive grounds, it seems to be completely redundant to label a 19th century plantation in South Carolina a "forced-labor camp;" that fact is self-evident. That would be like changing this article from calling this institution a "college" and instead labeling it an "baccalaureate academic institution;" it's self-evident and redundant.) ElKevbo (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Your suggestion that it is redundant to correctly use the more accurate term "forced-labor camp" is a page out of the Lost Cause movement. The term "plantation" sanitizes the horrors of what went on there. Auschwitz is not referred to as a "collective center" or some other "neutral" terminology. It was a Nazi concentration and extermination camp. Similarly, large farms and estates where enslaved people were exploited were "forced-labor camps." It is you who is perpetuating an edit war to continue a sanitation of history. Let it go.

https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/160266 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregGregorino (talk • contribs) 00:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

This encyclopedia article is not the place to correct this historical mistake; we follow what is done is reliable sources. I know that is very frustrating when many sources are wrong in some way (or, more likely, simply behind the times or out of step with current ideas and viewpoints) but it's the only viable way for a large, diverse encyclopedia to work. If we don't do that then all of our articles will only reflect the viewpoints, ideas, and objectives of the one or two editors who are most willing to control it and ignore other editors. We have to follow the consensus and major ideas of reliable sources. This page tries to explain this, particularly the second "pillar;" I strongly encourage you to read it with an open mind. ElKevbo (talk) 03:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)