|WikiProject Lutheranism||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject United States / South Carolina||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I was looking for information from the WWII era at this college. The history stops well before that. If someone knows anything about that era, please write.
1992 and setzler
does anyone object to putting up information on the disgracful conduct of Dr. Setzler in 1992
- IMHO, that 1992 "controversy" is old - and minor - history and it serves no purpose to include that in the article. Theres hardly an educational institute out there that hasn't has some sort of faculty or administrative scandal somewhere in its history. Had it happened recently, say 2006, then it might be relevant or "newsworthy"...Engr105th (talk) 12:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
- Since Setzler was a liar and a scoundrel and was having sexual relationships with students, and was likely committing other crimes, that magically went away when he resigned. If he was innocent then he would have stayed and tried to be honest!
Accreditation status in lead
ElKevbo, Would you not agree that information regarding accreditation and Newberry's warning status belongs in the accreditation section? The SACSCOC disclosure statement regarding the warning status is cited in the new edits. Thanks. Jtboice (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
- No. A warning from an accreditor is quite serious and such information belongs in the lead where other vital information about the subject is placed.
- I also advise you to consult our policy regarding edit warring. It's fine that you made the original edits and that I reverted them but the next step is to discuss the issue, not for you to begin an edit war. So please revert your edits and take the issue to the article's Talk page. ElKevbo (talk) 05:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I see that this is still an item of controversy with at least one editor. The college was previously on warning but in June SACS placed it on probation which is the last warning before the accreditor revokes accreditation. In other words, this was a serious issue when it was "discussed" in March and it has become more serious in the interim. It unquestionably belongs in the article and I contend that it's important enough that it belongs in the lead. ElKevbo (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)