Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Grand Canyon University

For-profit status and adding ref note

As the article correctly states, the U.S. Department of Education classifies GCU as a "for-profit" institution (due to ongoing contracts and ties with its former for-profit owner, Grand Canyon Education). However, in 2018, GCU successfully transitioned to a non-profit status with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Arizona State Board for Private Postsecondary Education, and its regional accreditor, the Higher Learning Commission (HLC).[1] I think the Refn template should be added after "for profit" to clarify GCU's unique non-profit/for-profit status situation. Wikipedialuva (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RfC a few years ago - you can read it in the archives of this Talk page (linked at the top of the page). If you think that consensus may have changed since then, you're welcome to open another RfC. ElKevbo (talk) 04:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A clarification aka a Ref template to give the full details of the "for-profit" classification in the lead paragraph would be a tremendous addition, especially under such extraordinary circumstances. Granted that the sourcing was good. I hardly think another RFC is necessary after all that RFC was held about 4 years ago in 2019. An RFC is usually only a resort for dispute resolution and this reference seems to be a common sense add. I would definitely say adding the reference improves the article and better informs readers of all the facts. @Wikipedialuva I say be WP:BOLD and add it in. MaximusEditor (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FYI the reference [a] does not work at all and isn't visible in the references section. Unsure how to fix. wizzito | say hello! 21:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed it. The footnote text was added about 2 weeks ago in this edit, but because of a small bug was not showing at the end. -- M.boli (talk) 22:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Substantial re-write needed for some sections

Added copy edit tag to Rankings, recognition, statistics, and accreditation. Review needed for tone and importance. Could consolidate the second paragraph (statistics) with the paragraph on entrance requirements in Academics.

Description and History are well written. Campuses, Academics, Athletics and Rankings all need attention.

Expecting the page to get seasonal traffic since the men's basketball team made the NCAA tournament. Hireddense (talk) 01:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowling alley needs removed from recreational activities

Bowling alley no longer exists on campus. It was removed from thunderground to make room for other activities. Funsize3003 (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still not classified as non-profit by the US Department of Education

An unregistered editor has recently been editing this article to claim that this university is now classified as a non-profit institution by the US Department of Education. They are citing this recent court case to support their edits. That source does not support their assertion. The court of appeals has simply ordered that a lower court retry the case using different standards. This may eventually result in a court ordering the department to classify the university as non-profit, an order the department could choose to appeal and drag out for quite some time. More likely, the new executive administration that enters office in January will change the university's classification anyway.

This most recent development in the university's attempt to become a non-profit institution may warrant inclusion in the article (I don't think it does because it's just an inconclusive and intermediate detail). But right now the department still classifies the university as for-profit and that's what the article should reflect. ElKevbo (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is your thought on perhaps putting in a reference template/note in the lead for the time being to let readers have the full understanding of what is currently unfolding regarding the status, as stated above? MaximusEditor (talk) 23:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should add anything lengthy and detailed as we already have a lot of text about this in the body of the article. But it may be helpful to add a brief footnote that tells readers that this classification is inconsistent among different organizations and is the subject of an active lawsuit with more details in the "History" section of the article. I don't feel strongly enough to add this myself but I won't object if someone else wants to do it. ElKevbo (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy of “for profit” designation

The problem with prioritizing the US Dept of Ed’s “for-profit” designation is that it lacks the authority to override the determination of the IRS— the only federal agency which makes the legal “non-profit” designation. Since GCU’s non-profit status is also recognized by the state of Arizona as well as the NCAA, it seems the most accurate presentation would be that GCU is a non-profit with a footnote stating this is disputed by the Dept of Ed. Especially given that the Ninth Circuit remanded the decision back to the Dept of Ed for reconsideration, ruling that the “for-profit” determination was based on inconsistent application of their own standards. BluEyedSoul (talk) 16:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a for-profit university. Any education-related endeavor will be governed by the rules for for-profit educational institutions. The IRS does not govern educational activities.
I guess if you want to donate money to some of the corporate entities which comprise Grand Canyon University, the IRS status with regard to financial regulation could matter. But regarding educational activities it is a for-profit school. -- M.boli (talk) 20:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
>>“It is a for-profit university.”
According to an invalid designation which was set aside by the federal court and returned for reconsideration. Thus any governance as a “for-profit” has been invalidated.
>>“The IRS does not govern educational activities.”
Correct. The invalidated “For-Profit” status is not an “educational activity” but one in which the DOE “invoked the wrong legal standards by relying on IRS regulations that impose requirements that go well beyond the HEA’s requirements…”
From the Ninth Circuit decision (summary):
”The panel held that the Department applied the wrong legal standards in evaluating GCU’s application, and that the Department’s legal error required that its decision be set aside. The Department invoked the wrong legal standards by relying on IRS regulations that impose requirements that go well beyond the HEA’s requirements and instead implement a portion of § 501(c)(3) that has no counterpart in the definition of the term “nonprofit” set forth in HEA § 103(13).”
https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/11/08/23-15124.pdf
For the purpose of an accurate entry, GCU is recognized as a non-profit university by the IRS, the accrediting Higher Learning Commission and the State of Arizona. These details suggest that presenting GCU as a “for profit” in the first words of the entry as well as the summary graphic, is not only misleading but conflicts with Wikipedia’s pillar of a “neutral point of view”. BluEyedSoul (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I encourage you to view the archives of this Talk page where this issue has been extensively discussed.
In any case, it's only going to take a few months for the Department of Education to be forced to reclassify this institution, whether that's because they lose the lawsuit or because the new presidential administration directs them to do so, so this is eventually going to be changed to comply with your opinion. ElKevbo (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specially being an education scholar and his common sense approach, agree with ElKevbo. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that WP:NPOV would urge us to not slap a label on it as "for profit" when various government agencies and accreditation bodies disagree as to this contentious label. As always, WP:WIKIVOICE notes that we should :Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. The application here is pretty straightforward. I'll make changes shortly. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: This goes against the results of the RfC that explicitly focused on this precise question. ElKevbo (talk) 18:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I had missed the prior RfC (which wasn't broadly attended, but did occur). In any case, though, I do think this is ripe for discussion again. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:47, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really contradictory. The DoE isn't just looking at a combination of mission and financial structure; it's concerned with how well tuition money is reinvested in educational resources. If the money that comes in through GCU enriches its for-profit arm, that might tick all the boxes for non-profit as far as tax exempt status while the DoE determines that not enough of that money is going towards education. They're two separate determinations that use similar language, not conflicting findings on the same issues from two governmental bodies. We should absolutely explain that the college end of it is non-profit according to the IRS, but when we're talking about a type of school and not a type of organization, we should go by what the DoE says, full stop. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Wikivoice and Grand Canyon University tax status

How should Wikipedia's voice describe the current for-profit/non-profit status of Grand Canyon University?

  • Option 1: Do not describe GCU as presently "for-profit" or "non-profit" in Wikipedia's voice (such as in this revision); or
  • Option 2: Describe GCU in Wikipedia's voice as presently a "for-profit" institution (such as in this revision);
  • Option 3: Describe GCU in Wikipedia's voice as presently a "non-profit" institution.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey: Wikivoice and Grand Canyon University tax status

  • Option 1. Per WP:WIKIVOICE, we should Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. On one hand, Grand Canyon University is considered to be a non-profit by both the IRS and the Higher Learning Commission (GCU's accrediting body). But, on the other hand, the U.S. Department of Education ruled in 2019 that GCU was for-profit at that time. Two years later, GCU sued the DoE, and the most recent ruling in the case (from a federal appellate court) threw out the DoE ruling (9th circuit ruling) on grounds that its methodology for determining tax status contained fatal errors; litigation is still ongoing.
    What is clear here is that any label here with respect to for-profit/non-profit status is a seriously contested assertion. The application of WP:WIKIVOICE (a portion of WP:NPOV) is straightforward: we should avoid labeling this one way or the other in Wikipedia's voice, and we should adopt an agnostic approach (such as this version of the article takes).
    — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 assuming we're talking about the type of university. GCU is a for-profit university with a non-profit tax status. I don't think either of those two facts are disputed. The controversy on this talk page comes from whether we should substitute tax status for university type (no, we should not). The DoE isn't just looking at a combination of mission and financial structure; it's concerned with how well tuition money is reinvested in educational resources. If the money that comes in through GCU enriches its for-profit arm, that might tick all the boxes for non-profit as far as tax exempt status while the DoE determines that not enough of that money is going towards education. That's why they're two separate determinations [that use similar language], not conflicting findings on the same issues. We should absolutely explain that the college end of it is non-profit according to the IRS, but when we're talking about a type of school and not a type of organization, we should go by what the DoE says, full stop, and what the DoE says is not actually under dispute. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The counter argument is that we should put aside the DoE and substitute an IRS designation... no, it's not. The counter-argument is that "for-profit" relies on a designation from the DoE that no longer exists because it was thrown out in court, and other agencies (IRS) and accrediting boards have judged this as a non-profit. If we should go by what the DoE says, full stop, then we should withdraw any particular tax designation until they issue a legal and valid ruling. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For clarity, note that this quotes something which I was editing out of my comment, but edit conflicted; the same meaning is still there, though. First, I'll admit that I missed that there was news last month and assumed this was the same debate that keeps popping up. Caught up now. So it looks like the for-profit designation was not itself thrown out; the appeals court just ruled that an application for nonprofit status had to be reevaluated, right? So isn't this change premature? Under the incoming administration, with as much PR as GCU does on this issue, it's all but a sure thing that the application will be granted, but for now it's still for-profit, no? So let's revisit whenever the application is evaluated again? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:41, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that's an accurate understanding of the legal ruling (which highlights why we don't rely on legal documents for information in articles). The court has told ED to use a different standard(s) to determine the university's status, not that its determination is incorrect. The university is still classified as a for-profit institution by ED. That may change after the department applies a different standard(s) but it may not. ElKevbo (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 I think that Rhododendrites has it correct in a comment they left in the section above this RfC: The Department of Education is the authority on educational institutions and is focused on how to categorize the university separate from its parent organization and other business relationships. This differs from my !vote in the previous RfC which was to omit the designation altogether in favor of a footnote and discussion in the body. (And, on a minor note, "DoE" is typically used for the Department of Energy; ED is the common abbreviation for the Department of Education.) ElKevbo (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2. (I came here from the RfC listing, and have never previously been involved with this page.) I've read the entire page (including how the institution's self-description has changed over time), all of the talk sections above, and the earlier RfC. Although there is currently a legal case taking place, and that might change the answer to this RfC question in the future, there is not currently any finding that the Dept. of Ed. classification is incorrect. Editors above have made a credible argument that the IRS uses a different set of criteria, and we should be concerned here with what type of educational institution it is, as opposed to the type of business structure it has adopted. The "private for-profit" language is appropriate for the lead, and the footnote and later text on the page appropriately explain the nuances. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 slightly modified to remove mention of IRS etc. from lede. For-profit educational institution is NOT a tax status. Right now GCU is unambiguously categorized as for-profit by the cognizant regulatory authority, so that is Option 2. The paragraph which says this status is contested should remain in the lede -- that seems to be a notable part of the school's story at this time. And the details of that story definitely should be in the body of this article. But it is irrelevant and highly misleading to include the IRS tax status in the lede. -- M.boli (talk) 22:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1 After further thought, agree with @Red-tailed hawk: - the revised article under Option 1 presents the reader with all the alternatives and full information without the encyclopedia effectively taking sides contrary to voice. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. The school may or may not be for-profit depending on the definition. It's confusing for us to commit to one of those definitions in Wikipedia's voice. It isn't obvious that we are referring to the Department of Education's designation of the school; in my experience, "for-profit" far more commonly refers to the tax status. – Anne drew 02:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1. As said earlier, per WP:WIKIVOICE, Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. Frankly, the argument that IRS thinks it is nonprofit and that Courts decided the DOE opposing view was [overturned] seems to leave no current view otherwise -- but I see no reason to think this is the end of the story, nor any reason that WP should decide. So have restraint and just report the coverage of the events, and make no WP:OR judgement in wikivoice. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion: Wikivoice and Grand Canyon University tax status

As a note, the previous RfC occurred well before the 9th circuit ruled on the substance of this case. At present, the Department of Education's ruling is set aside and (as far as I can tell), the DoE hasn't finished new proceedings after this was remanded back. I find it a bit odd, and certainly non-neutral, if we're going to rely on a DoE ruling that was thrown out by an appellate court for a Wikivoice claim about this org's tax status. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: please clarify where/how you mean. I presume you mean the first sentence and the infobox? Because I don't think anyone disagrees that we should be explaining all of the various designations somewhere in the prose somewhere in the article, right? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean generally within this article (i.e. How should Wikipedia's voice describe the current for-profit/non-profit status of Grand Canyon University?, which is the RfC question). The second paragraph in the lead describes the various differing rulings quite well. I think the two versions that are linked in the options show the distinction quite straightforwardly. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be good to explicitly limit this RfC to the lede and infobox. The institution's attempts to change to a non-profit institution, including its lawsuit against the federal government, is such a significant part of its history that it must be discussed in the body of the article. But exactly how it should be described in any specific part of the body will depend on the context and what is being communicated; in most of its history, the classification of the institution was unambiguous and it would be unnecessary and inappropriate to dictate to editors how this should be handled in places where it's uncontroversial. ElKevbo (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I (mostly) agree! The RfC is about the current for-profit/non-profit status of the institution; the historical stuff is (for obvious reasons) not in-scope. The only thing that I'd really differ on is that the current dispute should be described in the body without taking a WikiVoice claim one way or the other as to the actual tax status at this present moment. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not-for-profit educational institution is NOT a tax status. It is a status determined by the Education Department for regulation of education activities. Regulation encompasses things like eligibility to participate in student loan programs and student outcomes that need to be reported to the government. Stuff like that. Wikivoice on this question has to follow Education Department voice, as ED-voice is what classifies and regulates GCU. It would be radically wrong for Wikipedia to pretend otherwise.
I agree with ElKevbo that we should include in this article a paragraph or subsection describing the effort to change the classification, which includes that a court recently ordered to ED to reconsider according to a different standard. So the status might change. But hell no, we shouldn't WP:CRYSTALBALL GCU into something it isn't. What GCU isn't is a non-profit college. -- M.boli (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is already a section in the article specifically dedicated to this topic so we don't need to add anything more until there are new developments. In fact, we might have too much detail there... ElKevbo (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Grand_Canyon_University