Companion Article: What Is Religious Higher Education For?
The U.S. Department of Education recently released a proposed rule intended to increase accountability and transparency in higher education through new earnings-based standards tied to Direct Loan and Title IV federal student aid eligibility. The Center for Public Justice (CPJ) recently submitted public comments on the proposed rule, expressing support for accountability measures while also raising concerns about the rule’s disproportionate impact on religious higher education institutions.
Here are three key concerns religious institutions and faith-based stakeholders should understand about the proposal:
1. The Rule Disproportionately Impacts Religious Degree Programs
At the center of the proposed rule is the so-called “Do No Harm” (DNH) provision, which would restrict federal Direct Loan eligibility for programs deemed to produce “low-earning outcomes.”
While the rule applies neutrally across higher education, the Department’s own estimates indicate that religion and religious studies programs would be disproportionately affected. According to the data, 53.3% of students in religion/religious studies bachelor’s programs and 89.4% of students in master’s programs could lose access to Direct Loans under the proposed framework.
The Department admits that “religiously affiliated colleges” are expected to be more negatively impacted than many other institutions.
This outcome is not difficult to understand. Many graduates of ministry, missionary, pastoral, and religious service programs intentionally pursue vocations centered on service rather than financial gain. Measuring the value of these programs primarily through post-graduate earnings risks penalizing institutions precisely because they prepare students for religious callings and service-oriented vocations.
2. The Rule Raises Significant Religious Freedom Concerns
CPJ’s comments argue that applying the DNH provision to religious studies programs substantially burdens the religious exercise of both institutions and students under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).
For many faith-based colleges and seminaries, educating students for ministry and religious vocations is not peripheral to their mission; it is central to their religious identity. The Supreme Court has recognized that religious education and formation lie “at the very core of the mission of a private religious school.”
CPJ’s comments warn that the proposed framework could pressure schools to:
- reduce or eliminate ministry-oriented programs,
- encourage students toward higher-paying secular careers instead of religious vocations, or
- deprioritize their religious foundations in order to maintain federal funding eligibility.
The concern is not merely theoretical. If institutions and students lose access to Direct Loan and Title IV funding streams, the financial viability of certain religious programs could become increasingly difficult to sustain.
3. The Proposed Rule May Expand Beyond Congressional Intent
CPJ’s comments also raise concerns about a lesser-discussed provision within the proposed rule, a new “administrative capability” standard.
Under this proposed framework, institutions would need to demonstrate that at least half of their Title IV recipients and Title IV funds are not tied to “low-earning outcome programs.” If institutions repeatedly fail this standard, they could face provisional certification status and potentially lose access not only to Direct Loans but also to Pell Grants and broader Title IV eligibility.
CPJ argues that this provision exceeds what Congress authorized in the underlying statute, which specifically addressed Direct Loan eligibility rather than all forms of Title IV aid.
This distinction matters. Expanding the consequences beyond Direct Loans significantly increases the pressure placed on institutions, especially religious institutions whose programs will already be disproportionately affected by the proposed earnings metrics.
How These Religious Freedom Concerns Could Be Addressed
Another important point is that there are currently three general avenues through which these religious freedom concerns could ultimately be addressed. First, there is the administrative path. Religious institutions, advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders have already used the Department’s notice-and-comment process to request that the Department create a religious exemption for religious degree programs at religious institutions under the DNH framework. The public comment period for the NPRM has now closed, and numerous organizations, including the Center for Public Justice, submitted comments urging the Department to accommodate religious exercise through a targeted exemption. Second, there is the statutory path. Congress could amend or clarify the underlying statute itself to expressly exempt religious studies and ministry-training programs from the DNH framework. While legislative reform may prove more difficult and time-consuming, Congress retains the authority to narrow or redefine how the framework applies to religious higher education institutions. Third, there is the possibility of litigation. Religious freedom advocates and legal organizations have already signaled that they are prepared to challenge both the statute and its implementing regulations under the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act if the final rule imposes substantial burdens on religious exercise without a compelling governmental interest.
Accountability and Religious Freedom Should Coexist
CPJ’s comments affirm the legitimacy of transparency and accountability in higher education. Students and families benefit from clear information about educational outcomes and financial risks.
At the same time, accountability systems should not inadvertently discriminate against religious institutions or reduce the value of higher education solely to post-graduate earnings. A pluralistic society benefits from institutions that prepare students not only for profitable careers but also for service, ministry, education, counseling, and civic leadership.
As the rulemaking process continues, these questions will remain important not only for religious colleges and seminaries, but for the broader future of institutional pluralism and religious freedom in American public life.
Dr. Girien Salazar is the Director of Faith-Based Policy and Research at the Center for Public Justice (CPJ). Girien’s non-profit leadership experience includes roles as Executive Director of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference (NHCLC), Director of Development at The Philos Project, Director of Development at Nelson University, and service on non-profit, local, and state boards such as the Latin American Heritage Society, San Antonio Parks and Recreation, and OneStar National Service Commission Board in Texas. Girien holds a Bachelor of Science in Church Ministry and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies from Nelson University and a Doctor of Philosophy in Leadership Studies from Dallas Baptist University. A U.S. Navy veteran, he served eight years as a Religious Programs Specialist and was honorably discharged at the rank of Petty Officer 1st Class.
