European-American University™

This interview was conducted in August 2007 by Kathleen R. Lucia, EAU Vice-President for Public Relations and Administration.

Why EAU? Does the world really need another university?
One of the main conditions behind the establishment of EAU was that it must bring something different and valuable to the global table. Many new universities originate in the desire simply to start a school that will then become a part of the prevailing educational establishment with whatever values this implies. EAU, by contrast, is the fulfilment of a very specific philosophy and spirituality that is clearly distinct from that of the current mainstream, and indeed that represents what amounts to a robust challenge to the dominant non-student centered approaches of today.

It is important to understand that the vision that EAU represents - non-traditional education - is a specifically political set of values, using that word both within its sociological and its wider context, and thence the foundation of EAU itself constitutes a political act within a context of religious activism in favor of the educationally disempowered. Carl Rogers in The Politics of Education says, "Time and again I have observed that if one teacher in a traditional system, without talk or fanfare, institutes a person-centered process of learning in one classroom, that teacher becomes a threat to the whole system. The ferment of responsible freedom and shared power is recognized for what it is - a revolutionary force - and is suppressed if possible."

The EAU vision places the learner - not the educational establishment or the system of tenured faculty which it supports - at the center of their own learning process. It is a vision that speaks of a great deal of trust in our fellow human beings and in our common humanity. It opposes the view of humankind as tainted by original sin, and, to quote Matthew Fox, replaces that view with one of original blessing. In his book A Liberating Vision, California politician (and Rogerian) John Vasconcellos says "Neither money nor human nature is the root of all evil. The root of all evil is our belief that we're evil, and our resultant efforts which serve to make us so." If we accept this, our reaction to the concept and processes of education must be completely reformulated. We educate not because we believe our fellow beings are fundamentally evil and we must force them towards the good that we (the overclass) arrogantly claim to monopolize, but because we seek to draw out the good - the divine Spirit - that is inherent within them and that seeks a framework in which to display itself.

Not only is it the case that people respond instinctively to the vision of themselves as partakers in grace, it is also the case that trusting and empowering them brings out the best in what they have to offer. It does not control that offering, instead it accepts it in its fullness even when its manifestations challenge us to the core. The alternative is authoritarianism or intellectual slavery; it is to deny the individual the opportunity to reach their full potential and ultimately to deny our common humanity in search of mere ideologies of temporal power. For too long we have failed to see the individual as the proper owner and controller of their own educational processes and destiny, and latterly that very concept has been aggressively attacked both by those whose vested interests it threatens (generally the state, public universities, and educational unions, all wedded to an authoritarian ideology). Their interests are best served by reducing people to a quiescent, obedient mass that will leave the expert overclass free to govern for its own benefit alone, and encourage the best and brightest to compete to win the approval of that overclass according to the rules it sets. Non-traditional education challenges this view and exposes its weaknesses. In empowering people through their right to educational choice it also gives them back their dignity.

The state cannot responsibly take the place of adults themselves in determining their educational needs and the appropriate solution to them; particularly not, when as in the United States and some other countries, the state is in collusion with big business cartels such as the accreditation agencies which are explicitly protectionist concerning their turf. The failure of state education is documented extensively in the resources listed by this website, and also neatly summarized by a seminal paper from the great libertarian Harry Browne, "The Greatest Mistake in American History; Letting the Government Educate our Children" (available here). In particular, Browne makes the point that a free market will succeed in raising standards, improving choice and - I would add - in permitting educational experimentation of just the sort that we aim to achieve at EAU.

Returning to John Vasconcellos again, he has said that "it isn't enough for you and me to sit back and wait for someone else to fix our world. If we choose to take no personal responsibility for what is going wrong - and no part in improving it - then we forfeit our right to complain. If you and I instead choose to recognize our personal potential and responsibility, and involve ourselves - we have a whole new world to gain." This is our vision. It is all too easy to shrug our shoulders and say that it's too difficult, or the odds against us are too great, or that our own particular imperfections render us unworthy for the task. The fact is, if we know what we believe reflects a fundamental spiritual truth that assists us to fight injustice and to bring about a positive difference, it's our duty to go out there and proclaim it to the best of our ability. As Gandhi said, "We must become the change we want to see in the world."

One thing the world doesn't need - and that I was determined from the outset EAU should not be - is another second-rate private sector university. In EAU I was determined that what we offer should be highly credible and of commendable quality, and that we should be a genuine "alternative university" rather than a watered-down imitation of the mainstream. Our difference from other institutions is just that, a difference, not a mark of inferiority.

Leading on from that last point, what are your views on EAU and accreditation? Will EAU seek accreditation in the future?
I have been a strong critic of current postsecondary systems of accreditation for some time now. My principal criticism is that they make claims to assure quality which are simply not borne out in practice, and that they function as aggressive monopolists by restricting innovation and consumer choice and shutting out the private sector. I am a contributor to a number of articles that examine these issues in detail as part of EAU's Amos Bronson Alcott Center for Educational Research.

This situation is particularly true of the United States, which at least has had a reasonable tradition of private, independent higher education that has brought forth quality outside the accredited sector in the past. Elsewhere, and particularly in some European countries, we are dealing with a more nakedly displayed market protectionism designed to enforce a state monopoly and to prevent the private sector from gaining any foothold.

The key to understanding this process is that when these issues are brought before the various legislatures their proponents deliberately fail to make the distinction between diploma mills - which no-one wants to see - and legitimate private sector schools that do not wish to seek accreditation for reasons that have nothing to do with educational quality. The latter constitute the serious competition for the public sector. That failure tells us that this issue is not actually about consumer protection or indeed diploma mills, but instead concerns market control and the reinforcement of a public sector monopoly.

The recent report from the American Council of Trustees and Alumni on accreditation in the United States ("Why Accreditation Doesn't Work and What Policymakers Can Do About It") - the second hard-hitting study of accreditation they have completed - had me nodding vigorously in agreement as they asserted and substantiated that accreditation is a false proxy for quality. What accreditation certainly does do, however, is impose an explicitly political and protectionist agenda, behind which are dogmatic assumptions - about the nature of the educational process, about the concentration of power within the caucus of tenured faculty and administrators (rather than democratically and inclusively with the student body) - with which I disagree profoundly.

Unfortunately, the accreditation cartel has enshrined within its principles and modes of operation the very academic conservatism that holds its member institutions back from innovating to meet the needs of the market. The majority of the regional accrediting agencies will not consider accrediting those schools that operate solely via distance learning, and the two national accrediting agencies that will do so are constrained by the powers-that-be from allowing their accredited schools to offer a full range of programs beyond the wholly professional arena. Further limits are placed on the recognition of prior learning for college credit; limits that are the outcome of conservative and anti-competitive forces and of traditional rather than non-traditional academic concepts. No recognized agency permits the accreditation of transnational online schools that seek to offer a spiritual model of education on an individualized non-traditional basis in the way that EAU does. Accreditation demands standardization of the delivered product, and we are founded on the principle of offering individualization as a conscious alternative to standardization. Add to that the fact that most such agencies limit their recognized accreditation to institutions based in the United States (where we do not operate), and it is clear that there are few solutions for us in this direction at present.

In addition, observing the way in which the regional accreditation cartel has conducted its campaign against private sector competition since its outset in the late 1990s has served to convince me that the political chicanery that has been characteristic of their approach could not be compatible with any institution with which I had serious involvement.

That being said, I am not at heart completely opposed to accreditation per se. I believe it should be a voluntary process explicitly linked to quality assurance and student outcomes (construed in a manner inclusive to non-traditional as well as traditional institutions, and responsive to outcomes on an individual basis) and wholly separate from government control or access to government funding. I also believe it should be offered on a sliding scale of fees so that larger, better established schools with higher profits pay more than those which are small or just starting out. The costs of accreditation are a major barrier to its pursuit for many small schools, particularly those which are religiously based. When I was leading Marquess College, of which more later, we sought and earned a private quality assurance certification from an independent provider (International Charter) and also belonged to the former British Learning Association (now the British Institute for Learning and Development) and subscribed to its code of conduct allowing appeals to the BLA in the event of student dissatisfaction. That provided an element of external audit and quality assurance for our students that I welcomed as confirmation that we were operating within reasonable standards, and I would not be averse from seeking similar certifications in the future when the time is right for EAU to do so. What I would not want is to see the fortunes of EAU tied to any government-controlled system of education without certain specific guarantees, because to do so would be to jeopardize its model of education in the light of possible future political changes and pressures.

As an overall consideration, I would point out that, as I said in my opening sentence, many who start a new school do so simply with the intention to start a school that will then fit in to the prevailing establishment. EAU did not start that way, and because it is explicitly driven by a defined ideology and spiritual agenda, that agenda must come first in any consideration of its future. EAU exists not simply to allow adults to earn a degree - there are many other existing schools that do that and do it well - but to enshrine and further a specific philosophy of adult education that is today under threat, despite its clear integrity, strong theoretical basis and undeniable market appeal. So the first question we need to ask ourselves in any consideration of accreditation issues is - can we keep the existing model of instruction and operation intact within the demands of this process? If the answer is no, my reaction is to walk away rather than compromise on our principles. If the answer is yes, as might conceivably be the case in the future, we will consider the position carefully. But we make no promises or premature statements; candidates should not enrol at EAU in the expectation that EAU will gain accreditation or an equivalent status in the future. [Editor's note: since this interview took place, EAU has successfully gained accreditation from the government-recognized International States Parliament for Safety and Peace.]

The alternative approach to accreditation which remains of interest is to seek the validation of specific popular programs - for example our taught MBA - in collaboration with accredited institutions. This approach has been used successfully by others in the past, and we will continue to keep an eye to the possibilities in that direction.

Tell me about the religious nature of EAU. I thought religious schools only offered programs in divinity and similar areas?
EAU was founded by the Society for Humanistic Potential, a religious non-profit organization in which I minister, having had a senior role in SHP and its predecessor organization for the past four years. It is a specifically religious school and offers programs which are fully in keeping with the tenets of its founding organization. All students become Student Members of SHP for the duration of their studies; we do not offer education to any who are not willing to accept this membership status. 

The concept of religious schools offering a restricted range of programs (usually designated with a religious degree title) is again a relatively recent United States perception relating to religious exemption from state licensing, and one which has been further defined by state legislatures there since the 1990s. Religious exemption from state licensing means just what it says - it is not some kind of alternative state approval or accreditation scheme.

However, there are many explicitly religious schools in the United States, notably those within the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which do not hold religious exemption from state licensing (because they have received regional accreditation) and offer a very wide range of programs indeed. The same can be said of Roman Catholic and other schools elsewhere in the world. The religious mandate to educate does not place artificial boundaries around what is taught or examined except in as far as those boundaries are credally determined. The Roman Catholic context (for example) is as valid within the study of physics or fine art as it is within the study of theology. Ultimately these and all other studies are the study of the work of God and an attempt better to understand His will for us. 

As a result, when we at SHP formed EAU, we were concerned that we needed to offer more than just a seminary program. By contrast, the conception of EAU's mission which I and others put forward was one that involved specific outreach to those who shared and understood our principles, but who did not necessarily conceive those principles in terms of religious faith. By crossing the threshold of EAU, just as they would enter the doors of a synagogue or a gurdwara, they would be experiencing our spiritual vision and could come to appreciate the fullness of that vision within their own personal contexts. That vision is wide-ranging and humanistic; it embraces all learning and all knowledge as a part of the divine creation. 

While I and other members of SHP interpret this in a specifically Christian context (my own calling being within Liberal Catholicism), there is no barrier to those of other beliefs and faiths - or indeed those who do not frame those beliefs in the context of credal faith at all. It was primarily for that reason that we chose a name for the school that was based on the type of education it offers - being a fusion of the European and American systems - rather than one that was explicitly religious in nature. Nevertheless, if one were to refer to a degree from EAU as a "religious degree", as is sometimes done in the United States, that would be entirely correct, since we consider the processes of education and the earning of degrees to be specifically religious in context.

One thing that I do feel very strongly is a sense of personal calling to the work associated with EAU. This work was not something I took on lightly, nor was it done without considerable prayer, meditation and consultation. If it is seen by others to meet their needs and lead them to the fulfilment of their potential as human beings, that work will have been worthwhile.

You're a libertarian. Is EAU a libertarian school? Is it specifically right-wing in outlook?
Increasingly, I believe "left" and "right" in a political context are largely redundant terms, particularly when speaking of libertarianism. The political spectrum can equally be drawn with libertarianism on the left and authoritarianism on the right, in which case I would be somewhere on the far left of that spectrum and Hitler, Mao and Stalin would all be to the far right. Most contemporary political leaders would also be somewhere towards the right. Equally, I don't believe that my views fit as neatly into a particular box or label as the above might imply. Libertarianism is as much "up" as it is either left or right.

One distinction to establish at an initial stage is that EAU is not me, and I am not EAU. I certainly encouraged the foundation of the school, though I am not a director of it, and I am currently its President following nomination to that position by others, but in all likelihood will not always be. The institution must be greater than any one individual, and at some point it will be right for me to hand over to a successor in the position. And for some of EAU's students, unless they have a specific wish to get in touch, their only contact with me may be through my writings on the website, since someone else will mentor them and they will be dealing with other administrative officers during their studies.

All that being said, though, if something personal to me comes through in EAU's overall vision, I cannot truly say I am sorry. Unlike some libertarians, I am libertarian both in political/economic and in social terms, which broadly means that I don't see much of a valid role for state interference in most areas of life and that I believe in a truly free - and fair - market, along with Mises, Rothbard, Rockwell and many others. Yet some of those educationalists and other thinkers who have influenced me - Rogers, Neill, Knowles, Hodgkinson - would most likely see themselves - and indeed might even have seen me - as a part of the classical Left. Again, the urge towards easy taxonomy does not reflect the complexity of the actual position.

Everyone who is drawn to the EAU vision - regardless of their political persuasion, and whether or not they consider themselves to be a libertarian - is welcome at EAU.

What I do believe in very strongly is in the primacy of the individual, and of individual fulfilment, as the building-block of a healthy society. That is not a charter for selfishness, and I have little time for libertarians who do not apply their principles with conscience, or forget that the principle of voluntary contract at the heart of libertarianism demands consent from all parties involved rather than riding roughshod over the sensibilities of others. But what EAU offers is a place for the experience of education that is directed towards those aims of fulfilling individual potential without the imposition of extraneous governmental agendas, boundaries that are the outcome of academic conservatism, or other forms of ideology that work against a truly student-centered educational process. Our freedom from government control offers us the chance to put that vision into action, and through the work of EAU's Alcott Center for Educational Research, to advocate that education becomes once more something other than the passive tool of politicians' social engineering programs. The goal is the recapturing of education in its proper context as a natural part of the flow of life; to honor life itself as meaning more than the extraneous patina we attach to it; to recognize the difference between tradition and yesterday's bad habits.

There's much reference to Carl Rogers and his circle in the ideas behind EAU. Does that mean EAU is a "Rogerian" school?
In the widest sense and in the application of general Rogerian principles, absolutely. But we are not Rogerian purists, nor am I or those I work alongside "trained" Rogerian psychotherapists or members of the circle who knew and worked with Rogers. Those seeking a more direct contact with the Rogerian tradition than we can offer should look to the University for Integrative Learning (see below). We should also not forget that Rogers himself served on the adjunct faculty of a private self-regulating school (Clayton University in Missouri, U.S.) during the 1980s, so he would have known (and hopefully endorsed) exactly the model of education we are offering.

You will note that alongside our community-based learning programs, which are strongly Rogerian in orientation, there are also programs that are a good deal more structured and that look a good deal more "traditional", such as the taught programs in particular. By offering the latter we aim to broaden the basis of student-centered learning into a more orthodox context of mentoring as well as pure self-direction. Working with a mentor within an academic framework is a situation in which significant Rogerian principles can be experienced.

I feel that too often the Rogerian approach to education is perceived as "unstructured" where actually it contains a good deal of structure. The defining characteristic is that the structure is the outcome of the group and not an external imposition on it. Just as a Rogerian group can proceed without a single goal other than the process of learning itself, so it is possible to realize elements of Rogerian work within a goal-driven setting such as a given curriculum. There is nothing about Rogerian learning that says you can't use its essential principles to learn something rather than exploring purely in the abstract. To give some examples, congruence can be experienced in all good mentor-student relationships, unconditional positive regard and empathic understanding (reflection/clarification) can likewise be characteristics of mentored learning processes, and actualization can take place through the organic growth that comes from the experience of learning in this way. 

You might say to me - doesn't that mean that Rogerian principles can be carried forward into any kind of learning? I would disagree and say that they are very specific to the mentored model rather than one of instruction. Even in our most traditional programs, the mode of teaching is not instruction (where the power is clearly with the teacher and the student is reduced to passivity) but mentoring in which the student and mentor are equal partners in the exploration of given texts, theories and concepts. The emphasis is still very firmly on the student in the driving seat, but with the benefit of drawing upon the wisdom, knowledge and experience of a guide. It is the student him or herself who holds the power to decide the when, the why, the how and also at times (particularly in dissertation contexts) the what of learning. This is a strongly empowering process and it speaks to the core values of Rogers because it relies so strongly upon the personal characteristics of both learner and mentor. Most conventional schools (and educators) do not achieve this because they impose set timetables for learning and rely on an instructional, rather than a mentoring model. 

Is there any organizational relationship between EAU and Rogerian schools in the United States?
Currently, the principal Rogerian school in the United States in my opinion is the University for Integrative Learning in California and Wyoming, a distance learning school of the Association for the Integration of the Whole Person and that involves many who are senior figures in the person-centered education movement there. There is no organizational connection between EAU and this school, although we remain strongly interested in its work and recommend its program to anyone interested in Rogerian education.  UIL is religiously exempt from state licensing in California and Wyoming, and does not hold regional or national accreditation.

Did you use Rogerian techniques yourself during your experience as a classroom teacher?
Yes I did, whenever possible, but in most such situations it was a constant battle against an institutional framework, both at local and national level, that supported instruction over mentoring and that became progressively more authoritarian (and less meaningful) in my latter years as a teacher. I conducted several classes in an extension/general studies context that were classically Rogerian, using the model described in On Becoming a Person, and also applied principles of the person-centered approach throughout my work elsewhere. Much of this was strongly connected in practice to the mentoring concept I put forward above. The British Association for the Person-Centered Approach summarizes "the fulfilment of personal potentials...sociability...being open to experience, being trusting and trustworthy, being curious about the world, being creative and compassionate" as key Rogerian principles, and these are the principles which have grounded my philosophy of education throughout.

How does this relate to your concept of the polymath in education?
I believe that Rogerian ideas and techniques can sit well with those of us who are natural polymaths rather than specialists. The polymath is in a unique position to connect and to innovate, working at the boundaries of different fields. It is time for our society to place a greater value on polymathy for this reason, and to recognize that the polymathic perspective provides a necessary balance to the narrow perspective of the specialist. In my experience, polymaths also make for some of the most interesting teachers. Polymathy, provided it contains within it genuine multi-disciplinary expertise and not merely a superficial factual grasp, offers a valuable path towards the fulfilment of personal potential because of its variety, cross-disciplinary insight and intellectual demands; as Alberti tells us, "a man can do all things if he will". It certainly makes for a busy life, but equally one which is never dull or predictable.

Polymathy has been in evidence throughout my teaching career as well as in other areas of my life. In music, I have taught, mentored and examined from the level of graded examinations for the very young, to assessing portfolios of published work in composition for higher doctorate awards, all thanks to the freedom which the private sector affords. During my years in independent further education, working both within colleges and for independent tutorial agencies, I led successful departments in music and information technology, held managerial and administrative posts, and also taught history, English language and literature, business, classics, divinity and the history of art - all to the standard of the British A level (equivalent to freshman level in the United States). During the latter part of this time I had significant admissions responsibilities within colleges which were strongly international in their intake. I also valued my time mentoring and coaching young people outside of subject teaching, and did what I could in those situations to bring about a Rogerian and generally humanistic viewpoint as a guide to positive change and productive action. My subsequent work in educational consultancy has embraced international learning and credentialling systems and methodologies from every corner of the globe, as well as involving a wide range of research aimed at securing social justice in the comparability of academic standards between countries.

That wide range of activity was the outcome of personal self-actualization - a realization that my intellectual curiosity was in constant need of new challenges - as well as of the freedom prevalent within the British independent further education sector of that time. I was fortunate to work within environments where ability and performance, not paper qualifications, were the criteria for appointment, and where my polymathy was generally welcomed where elsewhere it might have been regarded less favorably. The fact that my students achieved consistently high outcomes - including several who were national award-winners - and reported high levels of satisfaction, was testament to the success of this approach.

I return to this concept often as a foundation for why I believe that the adjunct model is the right one for many educational institutions to adopt. By releasing their control over faculty, schools free them to broaden the experience they can bring to teaching and mentoring. They may also teach elsewhere, or devote time to writing, research, charitable work, industrial consultancy or a thousand more things that will enhance them both professionally and personally. They avoid the insularity and the defensive, territorial "academic mindset" that comes with tenured positions, and gain external insights that contribute strongly to their profile. Instead of setting faculty up as kings of the castle, we open up the castle for everyone to participate on equal terms. This is, quite simply, an academic revolution.

Where does EAU stand in the spectrum of online education choices?
EAU is not for everyone. It is not even for the majority of current online learners. In particular, most of those seeking distance education who live and work in the United States will find that they require a degree from an institution with recognized U.S. accreditation for such needs as employment in the public sector, accredited schools and major corporations, as well as for further study at accredited schools. In addition, certain U.S. states restrict or make illegal the use of domestic and foreign degrees that do not hold particular types of accreditation or external approval, and further restrictions may exist beyond the United States. I have written on the politics of why this is so, and why it shouldn't continue to be so, elsewhere, but the fact remains that this is the way things are at present.

By contrast, we serve a reasonably large niche of learners who are to be found principally outside those areas. In particular, the self-employed, the retired, those in private business where a legitimate degree from a private  institution is acceptable, and those whose pursuit of a degree is purely for interest or to validate what they have achieved for personal satisfaction may be interested in what we offer. There will also be those who are particularly drawn to the spiritual values of the model of education that we offer, and for whom that model will be a primary consideration.

I have always believed and maintained that there is a place for the legitimate private institution in education. I have also come to regard with not a little amusement those institutions that jump on the various bandwagons that promise a no-strings route to governmental accreditation, often from micronational or semi-extant entities, yet time and again see those bandwagons fail to deliver. All of this is part of a bid to be accepted as part of the educational mainstream. Better by far to establish a philosophy of conscious difference from other schools; an integrated worldview that justifies a new school on its own independent terms. Thus EAU stands as an alternative to mainstream educational provision, not a watered-down imitation of it.

Tell me more about your involvement in distance learning and the assessment of international credentials.
During the 1990s, at a time when the Internet was coming into widespread use, and consequently the most prominent person-centered distance learning schools were experiencing significant difficulties because of legislative changes in the United States, I became interested in whether it would be possible to carry on their mission outside the United States in an online school where such concepts were broadly based and offered within an academically meaningful context.

My interest in the whole area of distance learning was initially prompted by conversations with several people in my native England who had studied through the distance learning programs of U.S. institutions such as Columbia Pacific University (which at that time had a U.K. office - run at one point by one of the future founders of Fairfax University) and Greenwich University during its Hawaii period. These included the late Dr. Leonard Henderson, who has been adopted as EAU's Honorary Patron. I became interested in the educational model of these schools, though both became inactive within a short time of each other, and the process of following up advertisements and obtaining prospectuses led me in turn towards the major person-centered distance learning schools in the form of Summit University of Louisiana and American Coastline University in its pre-2000 incarnation. I corresponded with the then-president of both, the late Ray Chasse. Ray was virtually blind and seriously ill with diabetic complications at that time, and his eventual untimely death took those institutions in very different directions. Had Summit not been at that time mired in a combination of difficulties arising from the illness of its president and major problems with the Louisiana Board of Regents that were to prevent the enrolment of new students, I would very likely have enrolled there myself. Throughout, I became convinced that, although I had read much in the way of information and opinion on different schools from all sorts of sources, the only way I could really get to know the area well was through personal experience and sharing the experiences of others. This would be a process that would require me to put aside my preconceptions and prejudices in a spirit of openness and discovery, and to accept people and institutions without labelling or reductive assessment in advance.

So in the following years, alongside the pursuit of my other professional activities, I undertook what amounted to a large-scale self-directed learning project. I corresponded with many people - school owners, faculty and alumni - about their experiences with different types of institution, read widely on the subject, and investigated a number of schools myself through becoming a candidate for both degree credit and for non-degree studies, as well as joining the faculty and being actively involved in the management of several institutions. Having been educated myself at a series of highly traditional brick-and-mortar establishments, I consciously sought out those institutions that I believed offered a genuinely different and innovative educational model, studying in consequence at accredited, non-accredited and religiously exempt schools based both in the U.S. and elsewhere, with particular emphasis on the private sector, both for-profit and non-profit. I experienced everything from a small ultra-fundamentalist religiously exempt Bible school's doctoral program to studies in management at one of the world's top accredited business schools. As a lifelong voracious reader and self-directed learner, with a high degree of curiosity and (unfortunately) a relatively short attention-span, I found the methodology and approach of distance learning ideal.

The purpose of my project was not to gain credentials, since those I already possessed were fully sufficient for my needs, but to experience for myself the way that these schools worked (or didn't); to understand where they were coming from in terms of philosophy and praxis, and to see whether there were elements of worth to be found there from which I could learn. Where I was interested in a school but did not have personal involvement, I sought to speak with at least some who had such a connection. As background to this process I also studied the theoretical basis for distance learning, consulted and learned from professional educators involved in this area, had extended discussions with a senior foreign credential evaluator who was at that time undertaking much work for the U.S. military, and undertook an in-depth study of educational systems around the world together with their historical and legal frameworks. I followed distance learning forums on the internet and for a time helped to administer one of the better ones.

What I discovered could (and perhaps some day will) have filled several books. It was a process that set in place a powerful impulse towards the concept of innovative distance education; perhaps not as dramatically as Keats' "watcher of the skies/When a new planet swims into his ken", but certainly with a feeling that within the morass that was contemporary online education there were the seeds of something that could prove humanly valuable and of lasting calibre. It should be said at the outset that many of the schools which I investigated were of lamentably poor quality. Some of these had nevertheless attracted the involvement of interesting (and often unorthodox) people, while others did not even offer that consolation, being run by people who neither knew nor cared about education as anything other than an easy profit mechanism. Some schools had decent aspects alongside those things I was less happy about. And a few were really pretty good. Those that came into the last category were those offering a mentored model of instruction with sound mentors, and which offered (and maintained) clear expectations of student achievement. In what they did was the means to create a worthwhile ethic of non-traditional education within the private sector.

The effects of this study were to make clear the role of educational innovation and experiment as a creative and humanistic act. I was also to become more aware of the nature and problem of diploma mills, and the deceptive tactics used by these and by the lower-quality self-regulating schools. Over the years I believe I have grown more conservative in my approach - I hope in a good way - in that I am less tolerant in particular of schools claiming unrecognized accreditation, effectively meaningless approvals from far-flung countries, and those others that are simply poor imitations of the mainstream. 

I also became more convinced that the educational integrity that I sought could only be found in a specifically spiritual context, and also that the private sector in turn must be protected even though many of its existing fruits were rotten, because it was only through the experimentation that only it could permit that genuine innovation and development of the type I wanted to see could occur. I saw the campaign being waged by the accreditation cartel in the legislature, in the print media and on the internet to eliminate legitimate education outside the conservative boundaries of its control, and determined that this anti-competitive activism must be seen for what it was and challenged wherever possible. These processes led to EAU becoming what it is now.

My developing profile as an international education maven led to an increasing number of requests for my services as a consultant in these areas. Since founding my consultancy company, Marquess Educational Consultants, I have had the fascinating job of evaluating and commenting on thousands of credentials and institutions from every corner of the globe (obviously excluding those institutions with which I have had managerial involvement), for use before governments, mainstream universities and private business, as well as advising individuals as to their options regarding distance education. I have jointly undertaken and published research arguing strongly for greater social justice in respect of the treatment of Indian credentials in the United States, and consulted with many authorities in this area both within Indian academia and beyond. I have advised private institutions on developmental matters. I have also as part of my professional practice investigated suspected diploma mills and ensured that my findings have been reported to the authorities concerned. My company was the first private credential evaluation service to be established in the U.K., and became part of a worldwide sector that includes the credential evaluation services of universities, governments, private businesses and individuals, generally former admissions officers.

You may ask, how I can reconcile my beliefs on the nature of accreditation as a false proxy for quality with a professional practice in which accreditation represents a required standard? The answer is actually very simple, because the task for the credential evaluator in respect of accreditation is, put at its most straightforward, to compare the external standing of institutions in order to establish that such external standing is governmentally-recognized. It is not to comment on the meaning of that external standing except where questions of its genuineness are at issue, which is not the case in standard credential evaluation practice where the government in question considers it to be a part of its national system of education.

That being said, I do continue to have reservations as to whether standards of governmental approval for institutions in some countries can genuinely be considered comparable to at least the lowest general standard to which institutions which hold U.S. regional and national accreditation maintain. Yet there is no doubt that institutions with such approval are considered a part of their country's education system and that they appear in the standard reference sources as such. This establishes comparability on those grounds - that external approval exists and is accepted in general by the mainstream academic community (those standard reference sources) as meaningfully equivalent - without having to deal with the much more difficult and involved issue of what that governmental approval actually means. Such an issue would need to consider the at-times very wide differences that exist in terms of institutional autonomy, resourcing, and private/public sector relationships within national systems of education, and would likely make any comparison across different national systems difficult if not impossible in a practical context. This is why I have a problem with decisions to accept the comparability of the  external approval systems of, say, Rwanda or Zimbabwe, but to reject those of St. Kitts. As soon as you get into the issue of considering the relative meaning of those systems, you enter the area of subjectivity and potentially political influence, and therefore risk inconsistency and unreliability of judgement. The majority of credential evaluators rightly avoid this problem by working on the basis that national external approval systems approved by government constitute a general spectrum of comparability - the "GAAP", or generally accepted accreditation principles concept. The key distinction and fine judgement then occurs within and between the different levels of achievement represented within each recognized system.

I think everyone I have worked with in the professional context of evaluation will confirm that I am tough in general on schools that do not hold recognized accreditation - of which there are thousands around the globe.  My outlook is based on the argument of fitness for purpose. Where accredited equivalency is required, an unaccredited degree will not substitute, however genuine it may be, because the criterion is not the genuineness of the education, but the external approval held by the institution. And, as I point out, that legitimate unaccredited credential may serve its holder extremely well in an employment context or otherwise.

Which self-regulating distance learning schools of today do you like?
Firstly, let me say that I have no compunction in naming "the competition" because I honestly believe that these schools are so different from one another that they are not actually competing in terms of offering the same product. Secondly, I'd be untruthful if I didn't say that I believe that some of the schools in which I have been involved are good self-regulating schools. Now, as to some of the others, I've mentioned the University for Integrative Learning above. I think Akamai University in Hawaii has made a sound start and carved out a highly distinctive identity. I like Columbia Evangelical Seminary a lot, largely because I like Dr. Rick Walston's approach, although I don't personally share its conservative theological outlook. Yorktown University has a good profile as a conservative liberal arts school, and President Bishirjian has written some great articles on the accreditation cartel (linked from this website), although I note they are now themselves a candidate for accreditation with the DETC. I like the International University for Professional Studies in Hawaii (formerly Pacific University of Hawaii), another partner in the mentor-based non-traditional learning movement. I have also always liked (though know less about than I would like to) Vancouver University Worldwide, which has been through some very difficult times within its political climate and was a pioneer of the diversified global DL approach. 

There are other schools which I like some aspects of, but would not discuss in his context at the current time, largely because they are undergoing substantial change at present and it is wise to see how the dust settles. Generally, I am more conservative today in my enthusiasm for some self-regulating schools. The examination of institutions, national frameworks and documentation in the course of my professional practice has been a revealing process, to say the least.

What is the connection between EAU and previous schools with which you have been involved?
As stated elsewhere, the genesis of EAU really dates back to around 2003, and to a project which had the working title of the University for Self-Empowerment (UfSE) - it had other names at various points and grew out of the educational outreach of a non-denominational Christian community with which I was at that time involved. UfSE was to be a spiritually-based organization that developed some of the ideas that EAU now uses in its community-based and dissertation programs - essentially taking the Summit/ACU (pre-2000) educational model and extending/updating it where necessary, bringing together a number of interesting scholars and thinkers. However, UfSE never established the financial resources to get off the ground, and although I hoped that it would attract capital and sponsorship, these were not forthcoming, and it neither launched nor enrolled students.

Although UfSE itself was not to be, I was hopeful that some of its ideas and concepts could be launched in a smaller and more feasible form. The original university concept was reduced to a collegiate format, with other changes consequent upon a decision to base it in the UK (the most important of which being that we could not award UK degrees by law). This formed the basis of what was to become Marquess College, London, and at that stage we also absorbed a number of small correspondence-based institutions, most of which were theological in nature. MCL was registered with the UK Department for Education and Skills, and awarded certificate and diploma awards (only) in several fields as a college of independent higher and further education operating via distance learning. It also offered short non-award courses in various subjects using the platform.

MCL was successful in some respects, and graduated its handful of initial students, almost all of whom were theologians. We applied for and were successful in gaining the IC9200 quality assurance certification from the International Charter (an independent quality assurance body), as well as being members of the then-British Learning Association (now the British Institute for Learning and Development). However, the college also encountered some problems, chief of which was that its overall institutional mission was not sufficiently clear, with spiritual and secular elements integrated to a level that I and others found philosophically unsatisfactory. This brought about a position where our offerings were too diverse in their areas and pedagogical approaches to be harmonized as the holistic vision of a single institution. In addition, although we had the financial resources to operate efficiently and serve those enrolled, we were never in what I would describe as a comfortable position or one where expansion was an option.

These factors led to a level of enrolments that was below expectations and unevenly spread across the curriculum areas offered (with theology the only significant winner), and to the unfortunate situation whereby some good adjunct faculty remained unused despite the quality of the programs they had to offer and their considerable talents as mentors. In these circumstances, the Board decided that it was best to discontinue enrolments outside the area of theology, and to reconstitute the college in a specifically religious context. This led to the theology programs of MCL continuing as St Simon's College for a period and eventually in turn being absorbed into EAU in 2008.

At the same time as these changes were taking place, some members of the faculty and administration at MCL privately expressed the view to me that the original vision of UfSE was still viable if investment could be found to bring it to fruition. Fortunately, this investment was successfully secured via the Society for Humanistic Potential, and as a result a planning committee for the new institution was formed and worked on an expanded vision of UfSE as a spiritual virtual university devoted to the non-traditional philosophy of education and with the breadth and scope we had hoped to have seen originally. In 2007, we adopted the name European-American University to signify our new start in life, and launched to the public later in the year.

How do you answer the critics of EAU?
As has been said previously, "with fame comes defamation!" Any measure of worthwhile public activity, particularly if it is pioneering, brings an element of controversy, and I certainly don't undertake the work I do in order to win some kind of public popularity contest for myself or for EAU. 

I have endeavored to make as clear as possible that what we are doing at EAU is an alternative and a challenge to the values of the prevailing educational establishment, and is not for everyone. It therefore comes as no surprise at all to any of us at EAU to discover that some of those who represent or otherwise support the educational establishment do not like or approve of what we are doing, or that they will impugn our institution just as they did its many worthwhile and successful non-traditional predecessors.

No matter. We are not doing this in order to seek the establishment's approval, we are doing it because we believe strongly that it is right that a truly non-traditional philosophy of education should be brought to the public arena with integrity, and because we believe that EAU has the capacity to do just that. Ultimately all any of us can do - in Gandhi's words - is endeavor to "be the change that we want to see in the world". For us at EAU, this involves standing up and testifying to our truth and our vision, and knowing that there are many across the globe who will join their voices with us as we work for a transformative education that brings about spiritual and humanistic empowerment for those who would otherwise go unheard and unrecognized.

I conclude with a prayer attributed to Sir Francis Drake that sums up many of my feelings regarding EAU,


Understanding how the University works
>>Who is the University for?
>>An introduction to the University's philosophy
>>The business approach to education
>>An independent viewpoint