I personally attended the hearing online, analyzed the 111-page Olivet University decision, and heard from people at Olivet. The details were shocking.
By Jozef Volansky
Olivet University recently found itself in the headlines after its former state agency, California's Bureau for Private Postsecondary Education (BPPE), cited it with 13 violations of California's Code of Regulations. In the months-long process of contesting the violations, Olivet University, apparently deciding that it could no longer rely on its state accreditor, transitioned its operations under California's religious exemption on December 11. While the move to religious exemption would not affect theology students or alumni with divinity degrees like myself, my eyebrows were raised as to what my alma mater did that posed such a grave threat to California that it needed to have its license revoked. I had nothing but positive experiences during my time at Olivet University, and from what I'd heard since I graduated, it's only grown in quality of education and size, expanding to over 10 campuses and dozens of degree programs. And that doesn't count the growth of its numerous overseas affiliates.
When I asked around the alumni network, I heard that BPPE paid visits to Olivet multiple times, and what it found was that a handful of syllabi and faculty resumes weren't properly updated in school records. I didn't think it would make much sense for a university to have its license revoked for not updating a few syllabi. There must be more to the story, I thought. But surprisingly, when I looked into it, I found that BPPE has been given vast authority by the state to revoke the license of any university that is even found to have violated a single rule -- including, posting an out of date syllabus. I wondered, does every school in California state really have every single syllabus up to date?
That didn't seem likely, so I checked other BPPE records for comparison. Over 90 institutions were cited for a comparable number of violations as Olivet (some schools had 26 violations) but none received an accusation, like Olivet did (see Addendum 1). It was clear that something wasn't adding up. Was it the apparent collusion between BPPE and the media?
Meanwhile, numerous negative headlines were written about my alma mater having its license revoked in California, but when I actually read them, I realized none of the reporters actually read the BPPE report. If they had, they would have realized how evil it is that a Christian school just had its license revoked through a seemingly arbitrary action through collusion between the media and the state.
In clicking some of the articles "covering" the issue, I found the media to be even worse than the BPPE -- the articles were full of lazy reporting, a general lack of fact checking, and an obvious ignorance of the BPPE's accusations or the issues at the center of the dispute. Furthermore, many of the reports stemmed directly from rewrites of Newsweek's initial article -- the same Newsweek that was proven to have colluded with BPPE in the first place to attack Olivet University. This sickening disinformation campaign was continuing to harm the public, including Olivet students and alumni, like myself.
Believing BPPE to have engaged in significant bias and collusion in its process of reviewing Olivet University, I decided I should further analyze all 13 violations. What I found shocked me. None, as in zero, of the violations were actually brought as concerns by Olivet University students. No student was actually harmed because their syllabi weren't updated in an online database, or that the school's copy of their professor's resume was out of date. This comes as no surprise, having once been an undergraduate and master's student myself, and not remembering being concerned with the latest entries on my professors' resumes. What is a surprise, is that a university would have its license revoked over such trivial and arbitrary matters. It is almost as if BPPE was flaunting its own power to close down any university it wants, at any time, even if it's simply for being on the wrong side of media attacks.
Not only did the 111-page report not provide even a single instance of a student being negatively affected by any so-called violation by Olivet University, but of the 13 violations, all of them were highly technical (like the syllabi issues) or arbitrary -- in the sense that the actual legal code doesn't mention the "violation" that led to Olivet University's punishment. An example of the latter type of issue is that BPPE found Olivet University in violation of a "hybrid course" requirement -- but "hybrid course" is not even defined in the statute that BPPE said Olivet violated.
What follows is a brief summary and analysis of all 13 issues BPPE raised against Olivet, plus one that was rejected by the court. I believe that my findings will significantly benefit the public conversation surrounding this issue. You be the judge of whether these violations warrant the revocation of Olivet University's license by California state. I, for one, do not believe that they do.
Here is the full list of allegations:
First, BPPE alleges that Olivet has Insufficient Course Offerings in violation of CCR §§ 71710(a), 71715(b), 71745(a)(1)(2). Specifically:
- Failed to provide all educational courses represented in Approval to Operate.
- Failed to ensure students admitted to the educational programs will complete them and obtain degrees and diplomas.
Olivet disputed the following:
- Olivet is not required to offer all educational courses represented in its Approval to Operate at all times. CCR §§ 71710(a), 71715(b), 71745(a)(1)(2) state that there is no requirement that all education courses be offered at all times.
- Further, OU's Course offering plan is substantiated by qualified faculty and for subsequent classes in newly launched programs, there is a one year hiring lead time to sign contracts for subsequent years as soon as the first cohort starts his/her studies.
- There were miscommunications between the BPPE and Olivet regarding the student lists and available online classes. This was substantiated by exhibit.
- Each of the students identified by the BPPE were offered sufficient courses that allowed them to fulfill the full-time enrollment requirements.
- Olivet has provided evidence which demonstrates that all students admitted to each educational program have classes available that will allow them to complete and obtain their degrees on time.
The judge has at least dismissed this allegation
Second, BPPE alleged that Olivet Merged Classes in violation of Code § 94898(a). Specifically:
- Merged courses in a manner that could result in learning impairment, specifically:
§ BIBL120 The Gospels & BIBL511 New Testament I - Gospels;
§ BIBL240 Romans I & BIBL520 Studies in Romans I; and
§ ECON310 Microeconomics & ECON610 Microeconomic Analysis.
Olivet disputed the following:
- The first two pairs of bible study classes are advanced standing courses in the Master of Divinity program. These courses are equivalent to each other, thus, "merging" of each pair is warranted and there is no learning impairment.
Olivet responded that it remediated the following:
- The merging of ECON310 and ECON610 was a mistake and remediated. The instructor was warned of the violation and provided corrective guidance. The academic council has ceased the cross-listing of these courses.
- In addition, the Office of Academic Affairs conducted a University-wide faculty training for 2 days which covered, among other things, class rigor and instructional design.
- In addition, preventatively, the advanced standing option for the Master of Divinity program has been discontinued from academic year 2023-2024 in order to prevent any future confusion.
Third, BPPE alleged that Olivet Misrepresented the Method of Instruction in violation of CCR §§ 71710(b), 71715, 71715(d). Specifically:
- Failed to include a component of face-to-face instruction by duly qualified faculty.
- Failed to present courses in a logically organized manner.
Olivet responded that this is disputed and unsupported.
- There is no definition of hybrid course in the Act or the CCR. Olivet's published definition of hybrid courses sufficiently explains how the University conducts such classes. Classes were run synchronously by duly qualified faculty members via livestream during which students could interact with the professors. This is compliant with accreditor requirements. See CCR §§ 71710(b), 71715, 71715(d) (no definition of "hybrid" courses).
- Even so, Olivet has revised its definition of hybrid courses to make this clearer in its published materials.
- Teaching assistants did not teach courses but were merely present to assist faculty in student attendance and technological matters.
Fourth, BPPE alleged that Olivet's Curriculum was in violation of CCR §§ 71700, 71710(b), (e), & (f), 71715(d)(3)(5). Specifically:
- Failed to present curriculum in a logical manner.
- Failed to address the assessment of learning outcome by duly qualified faculty in course syllabi.
Olivet responded that BPPE did not cite the regulations properly in regards to "presenting curriculum in a logical manner." The regulations do not mention syllabi in regard to this standard, which is appropriate because the syllabi's purpose is to provide a general course overview. The correct place for detailed curriculum information is in the course catalog, where Olivet has already placed it.
Olivet responded that it remediated the following:
Olivet has created a "Syllabus Checklist (BPPE Requirements)" that outlines all the elements required by BPPE to be included in every syllabus. All syllabi and Olivet's Syllabus template have been updated according to this checklist.
Fifth, BPPE alleged that Olivet's Scholarship and Instrument of Indebtedness were in violation of CCR § 71810(b)(6). Specifically:
- Failed to address the financial arrangements or eligibility requirements for scholarships in the Institution's policies and procedures.
Olivet disputed the following:
- The information was clearly available on the website, as most students use the website to apply and not the catalog.
Olivet responded that it remediated the following:
- Students are informed that Olivet does not participate in state or federal financial aid programs. Because the University does not participate in the federal student aid program, it is not subject to consumer disclosures required under Title IV of the Higher Education Act.
- The majority of Olivet students receive scholarships directly from the University. Olivet has established and consistently implemented a clear scholarship application process. This information is available on Olivet's website.
- Olivet understands that this Cause for Discipline seeks to have this same information also published in Olivet's catalog. While Olivet did previously have limited scholarship information available in its catalog, it has since updated its catalog to include all the robust information available to students regarding scholarships from other sources.
Sixth, BPPE accused Olivet of not having faculty with Minimum Education Requirements in violation of CCR §§ 71720(a)(1), (5), (9), and 71850. Specifically:
- Failed to have required NACES evaluations for faculty.
- Failed to employ faculty that have degrees or terminal degrees in the fields of study offered - BPPE objects to Olivet's employment of its own graduates as professors.
- Failed to maintain faculty personnel files.
Olivet responded that it remediated the following:
- The BPPE identified three faculty files that did not include third party foreign credentials evaluations from BPPE-approved evaluation services. Credentials for each of these faculty have been verified as detailed in the Response and Olivet has reinforced its self-monitoring process and engaged an external HR advisor to ensure faculty files are maintained properly on an ongoing basis.
- Any missing or expired faculty contracts have been replaced and executed with current and valid copies.
However, Olivet identified the following as disputed and unsupported:
- There is no regulation or statute (and the BPPE cites to none) that prohibits a university from hiring its own qualified graduates. See CCR §§ 71720(a)(1), (5), (9), and 71850 (no prohibition on hiring graduates).
- CCR §§ 71720 and 71850 make no mention of the contents of faculty contracts and there is no provision in the Code which mandates that contracts must contain specific terms. See CCR §§ 71720(a)(1), (5), (9), and 71850 (no requirements for contents of faculty contracts).
- As requested, Olivet provided BPPE with information for courses, faculty, and students enrolled "at this campus." As requested, Olivet also provided an "all student list" which includes online students. Logically, the list of faculty teaching during the Winter 2023 term at the Riverside and San Francisco Campuses will not align with an annualized global headcount of the in-person and online student body because the information requested does not cover the same universe.
- In addition, BPPE requested a list of "current faculty" teaching "at this campus," which, again, logically, does not match the "faculty roster" in the catalog. The faculty roster includes any faculty for all delivery methods and locations who taught in the past five years and might be eligible to teach in the future as faculty may not teach every course every term. Accordingly, it is expected that the list of current faculty and the faculty roster will not align perfectly. Moving forward, Olivet has updated its faculty roster to include only individuals who are presently instructing a course in the ongoing academic year or those who have been scheduled to teach within the next two academic years.
- There are faculty sufficient to teach all general education courses offered by Olivet.
Seventh, BPPE accused that Olivet had a Failure to Demonstrate Possession of Sufficient Financial Resources in violation of CCR § 71745(a)(6). Specifically:
- Failed to demonstrate that it meets the requirements for financial resources.
Olivet responded that it remediated the following:
- Audited financials submitted with the Annual Report indicate that Olivet presently has an assets to liability ratio of 1.33 to 1, which exceeds the requirements in the regulations.
Eighth, BPPE accused Olivet of not maintaining Minimum Operating Standards - Administration in violation of CCR § 71730(d). Specifically:
- Did not have adequate staff present to provide assistance required by the BPPE at onsite visit.
- Staff listed in the Institution's organizational chart were inconsistent with staff identified at the Main location and San Francisco campus.
Olivet responded that it has remediated the following:
- Olivet has updated its handbook and organizational charts to reflect current staff.
Olivet disputed the following:
- The BPPE conducted two unannounced site visits. Had Olivet been aware that the BPPE would be conducting site visits, it would have ensured there were adequate staff available to assist with the BPPE's requests.
- Olivet's registrar was also on vacation and its academic dean was returning from a conference both traveling internationally at the time and the majority of requested documents fell under their purview. While Olivet immediately engaged other staff members to assist, the tasks fell well outside their usual duties and, as a result, it took far longer than desired to collect the requested information and documents.
- In addition, weeks before the visits, the Fairview Fire in Hemet, California came so close to the Riverside campus that staff, students, and important records were hurriedly evacuated off-site. Though returned to campus by the time of the visit, all records had not yet been replaced to their appropriate locations, which presented additional challenges in locating the correct records during the site visit.
- Even so, the University undertook extraordinary efforts to gather the information and documents requested and produced them to the BPPE as quickly as possible.
Ninth, BPPE accused that Olivet did not have Self-Monitoring Procedures in violation of CCR § 71760. Specifically:
- Failed to audit faculty personnel files and ensure they contained current information.
Olivet responded that it remediated the following:
- Olivet has conducted a thorough internal audit of the faculty files to ensure they are complete, accurate, and current. The HR office has a staggered faculty file revision plan in accordance with published university policy.
Olivet disputed the following:
- Only 5 of the 24 faulty files did not include transcripts (rather than all, as implied by the Accusation), but Olivet was in possession of the faculty transcripts and used them during the hiring process, the University simply did not timely file them in the faculty's permanent HR records.
- In addition, weeks before the visits, the Fairview Fire in Hemet, California came so close to the Riverside campus that staff, students, and important records were hurriedly evacuated off-site. Though returned to campus by the time of the visit, all records had not yet been replaced to their appropriate locations, which presented additional challenges in locating the correct records during the site visit.
Tenth, BPPE accused Olivet of not having proper Identification of Faculty in Course Catalog in violation of EDC 94909(a)(7). Specifically:
- Failed to identify all faculty in the Institution's catalog and faculty member list.
Olivet responded that this was duplicative of the sixth accusation, and any minor issue was remediated fully.
Eleventh, BPPE accused Olivet of not having proper Student Records in violation of CCR § 71920. Specifically:
- Failed to have Enrollment Agreements in student records.
Olivet responded that it remediated the following:
- A detailed analysis of the student records reflects that while there were a few, minor deficiencies in the records, the issues were not systemic. The Admissions Office created a new Standard Operating Procedure which better streamlines the process of student record keeping and maintenance.
- Any identified missing agreements have been collected from students if such deficiency was identified in the latest internal student file audit.
Twelfth, BPPE accused Olivet not having proper Maintenance of Records in violation of CCR §§ 71930(a) and Code § 94900.5. specifically:
- Failed to give BPPE immediate access to Institution records during the onsite visits.
- Failed to properly maintain faculty records.
- Failed to clearly differentiate the method of course delivery in the syllabi.
Olivet responded that this was duplicative of the third, eighth, and ninth accusations.
Thirteenth, BPPE accused Olivet of not meeting Minimum Requirements for School Performance Fact Sheet in violation of CCR § 74112 and Code § 94929.5. Specifically:
- Failed to maintain SPFS data in its entirety.
Olivet responded that it remediated the following:
- Olivet appointed Dr. Martin Zhao as Director of Institutional Research and Compliance. He will assist in ensuring clear communications and uniform application of institutional policies.
- Additional training has been provided to the registrar to ensure data is correctly recorded.
- BPPE data compilation and record-keeping has been revised and approved by the University's academic administration.
Fourteenth, BPPE accused Olivet of making Withdraws and Refunds in violation of CCR § 71920(b)(3)(4). Specifically:
- Failed to provide documentation of student withdrawal requests or proof of a refund of tuition fees for students listed on withdrawn student list.
Olivet disputed the following:
- Olivet pays refunds associated with withdrawal requests within no more than 45 days. However, a material percentage of students do not pay tuition or fees. Accordingly, when they withdraw there is no refund calculation performed because there are no funds due to be returned.
- To the extent the BPPE disputes this, Olivet requires a listing of the student files that the BPPE relied upon in forming this accusation so it may specifically address this allegation.
In conclusion, the BPPE decision against Olivet University was based on unequal treatment, false premises, and arbitrary punishment. This pattern raises serious concerns about transparency and fairness in BPPE's regulatory practices.
Jozef Volansky is a graduate of Olivet University and currently ministers a church in Bratislava, Slovakia.
