I have been on the road for about 12 days now, visiting family in Kansas after speaking at a journalism conference in Washington, D.C. During that time, I have received quite a few emails asking me to comment on the New York Times story about the crisis at The King’s College in lower Manhattan.

As longtime GetReligion readers know, I taught seminars at The King’s College for five years after the semester-length Washington Journalism Center program moved there in 2014. I have friends and former colleagues at TKC and, thus, writing about this topic is quite personal.

Thus, let me stress that the following is a GetReligion commentary about the Times report — which is an important story and, frankly, quite good. It’s crucial — here’s that GetReligion theme, again — that it was assigned to a religion-desk reporter. However, the story, in my opinion, does have an important “ghost” in it, one that could be spotted by anyone who has dug into the details of recent academic and financial trends in Christian higher education.

Hold that thought. First, here is the double-decker headline on this news feature:

The Second Life of a Christian College in Manhattan Nears Its End

The King’s College, which draws students from around the country to Manhattan, has not been able to recover from enrollment and financial losses.

As is the case with MANY private colleges, before and after the coronavirus pandemic, this small college has fundraising issues, enrollment issues and then budget issues that are directly linked to enrollment issues.

To be blunt, many excellent private educational institutions are overly dependent on tuition dollars and lack the endowment funds to survive severe drops in recruiting numbers. For two decades Christian college leaders have known that they would face severe challenges after the passing of a giant wave of students from the giant Millennial generation.

Thus, Christian college administrations have been asking hard questions about recruiting and fundraising. Here is one way to look at it: The concerns of donors, church leaders and parents are not (#DUH) always the concerns of potential students. However, a Christian college cannot survive without loyal donors, church leaders and parents willing to send their children — the ultimate investment — to a specific college.

The raises a painful question: Should small Christian private schools cast a “wide net,” seeking as many students as possible (period), or focus on “mission fit,” seeking students from homes and pews that strongly support a school’s core values and programs?

With that in mind, let’s start walking through the Times report, starting with the overture:

Administrators at The King’s College, a small Christian liberal arts college in Manhattan, have been meeting with students in recent weeks to deliver a grim message: All of you should find someplace else to go to school.

Between the pandemic and a business deal gone bad, the college had struggled for years. But what began as a handful of layoffs in November quickly escalated to a doomsday scenario. Now it appears likely the school will close, and school officials have been going from department to department to show students a list of schools that might accept them as transfer students.

The King’s College is a small school. But as the city’s only high-profile evangelical college committed to “the truths of Christianity and a biblical worldview,” it is more well known than its enrollment numbers — over 600 students before the pandemic, down to roughly half that now — might suggest.

Let me stress something about that 600 enrollment number. The King’s College is built on an intense, unique core of liberal-arts courses that, in many ways, resemble a Great Books curriculum. To compare that 600 enrollment number with larger Christian colleges and universities, one should look at the combined enrollment in those other schools’ liberal-arts majors, such as English, history, political science, economics, etc.

Seen through that lens, TKC had a lively and growing student population. There were problems, however, in the years just ahead of the pandemic. Let’s keep reading.

Most of its students are white, and many come from conservative households far from New York City. For them, King’s has been a pathway to a world beyond their lives back home, where roughly half were home-schooled or attended private, often Christian, academies.

The word “conservative” in that equation is simplistic. It’s important, as always, to ask if we are talking about doctrinal, cultural or political conservatism. Many donors, church leaders and parents are “conservative” in all three senses of that word, but not all.

Let’s jump ahead in the story to note this inevitable, but valid, passage (I added the URLs):

But since 1999, King’s has run multimillion-dollar deficits each year and relied primarily on donations to make ends meet.

That became harder to do in recent years because of the death of several major donors, including Richard and Helen De Vos and William Lee Hanley Jr., one former official said.

Fund-raising was also complicated by a growing expectation from conservative donors that evangelical colleges vocally support former President Donald J. Trump, which King’s has not done, the official said.

Once again, it’s crucial to stress that the Trump era DIVIDED evangelicals, instead of (as many elite media reports claim) uniting them. This reality has terrified the leaders of evangelical institutions at the local, regional and national levels.

In terms of journalism and basic facts, it’s important that the Times report didn’t put the word “some” or perhaps “many” in front of the word “conservative” in this phrase — “growing expectation from conservative donors.”

A key question for all Christian private schools, and not just TKC: Did donors, church leaders and parents have strong doctrinal and moral reasons to support TKC, no matter what they thought of Orange Man Bad? Yes, GetReligion readers should remember my #NeverTrump stance.

Let’s keep reading. In my opinion, the following is the key:

Some students recoil at comparisons of their school with other Christian colleges that have become associated with political conservatism, like Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

“A lot of institutions subscribe to the label ‘Christian,’ but it comes along with a lot of political baggage that I know people here at King’s find to be unhelpful,” said Eli Johnson, 18. “The term ‘Christian’ for us does not mean Republican or Democrat or conservative or liberal, it is about Christ.”

Yes, but what about basic issues of doctrine, as opposed to politics? Read on:

King’s has always been a little different. Faculty are required to sign a statement of faith affirming their belief in seventeen “basic Bible teachings,” but students are not required to attest to any belief system or to attend religious services or events.

In interviews on campus, some students said the school’s biblical foundation was not a factor in their deciding to enroll. Others said it mattered to them, but was ultimately less important than the school’s location in Manhattan or its financial aid packages, which could be generous.

This is a perfect statement of the “wide net” theory in recruiting students for a tuition-driven private school. This clearly is important for students that value a New York City location as much, or as the story notes, MORE than a school’s core curriculum and doctrinal commitments.

This is, obviously, one way for school recruiting offices to approach an era with a declining number of potential students. The question: Does this approach consistently draw strong support, these days, from donors, church leaders and parents?

Some will say that asking this question has “political” implications and, alas, for SOME evangelicals this is true. But I would stress issues of doctrine, morality, culture and, yes, core curriculum.

In conclusion: What is missing from the Times report?

It’s clear that, for the Times, these are positive words — “students are not required to attest to any belief system or to attend religious services or events.” But are there donors, church leaders and parents who disagree?

The question is whether that “wide net” equation has been working with many donors, church leaders, parents and the creators of the nation’s growing networks of “classical,” Great Books-driven schools — Catholic, Protestant, nondenominational and (in my family) Orthodox. The home-school movement needs to be considered, as well.

As I said, the Times story is solid and important. However, I would ask if there was any attempt to listen to the voices of any TKC critics, especially those for whom the Trump factor was not dominant. There are also Christian educators who would note the dangers of a “wide net” recruiting approach, even though they understand why many school officials believe it is necessary in the current educational marketplace.

When dealing with many donors, church leaders and parents, issues linked to doctrinal, morality and core curriculum matter as much or more than location, location, location. Yes, there are some who would — alas — add “politics” to that list.

That’s a statement about the basic facts in this story. It would have helped for readers to have heard from one or two people who understood that part of the challenges faced by The King’s College. What to the experts say who work at Christian private schools that are growing?

As for me, I was (and I still am) a strong supporter of this college’s unique mission in the important, essential, marketplace that is New York City. I still hope and, yes, pray that a logical partner steps up to help TKC survive and thrive. Stay tuned.

FIRST IMAGE: The strategic location of The King’s College, red-pinned on Google Maps.