The Arbitrary Monopoly Crushing Higher Education

I n early February, the board of trustees of the University of North Carolina voted unanimously to develop a new school of civic life and leadership. Inspired by Arizona State University’s highly successful School of Civic and Economic Thought and Leadership, the trustees sought their own great civics program and more protection for campus free expression.

Similar initiatives are under way elsewhere, but this initiative has received considerable attention because it drew a public rebuke from the president of the university’s accreditor. According to the Wall Street Journal, the president of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) stated publicly that either “we’re gonna . . . get them to change it, or the institution will be on warning.” People who want great civics programs to succeed may wonder why such apparent intimidation tactics are being used against a new one. Some may also wonder whether such tactics are linked to a growing effort by accreditors to promote an alternative civics on college campuses — one centered on “equity-mindedness.”

Still others may wonder why we have accreditors at all.

To answer these questions, we need to consider how accreditors’ roles have evolved over time. In the late 19th century, nongovernmental accreditors formed regionally to set quality standards to distinguish good institutions. With the GI Bill, these accreditors acquired another function — that of gatekeeping federal funds — and it was this that set the stage for their forthcoming power grab.

In the late 1980s, they began to leverage this role to remake universities into quality-focused, data-driven businesses. The problem was that faculty had to be reconstructed to make these new businesses work. But faculty largely ran universities, and they had no interest in being reconstructed. So, accreditors allowed universities to merely present their faculty members as data-driven experts in learning outcomes and continuous improvement. Accreditors knew these presentations were largely made up, but it didn’t matter. What mattered was that the universities showed respect for their priorities. Universities got the message, and keeping accreditors happy became job No. 1. Obsequious check-in calls to them became routine, and questioning their standards or requirements was regarded as strictly out of bounds. Universities ceased to see any value in the accreditation process other than their continued access to federal financial-aid funds.

More recently, however, the intimidation game worsened. In the mid 2010s, accreditors began to remake universities into social-justice organizations focused on “closing equity gaps.” Seeking to end once and for all the disparate educational outcomes of racial and ethnic groups, accreditors sought to redefine “quality” as “equity.” Under the euphemism of “supporting all students,” their new standards and reporting requirements were designed to increase their leverage over campuses. Faculty were again the main target, but this time the accreditors wouldn’t be satisfied with embellished presentations. They sought to prioritize “equity-mindedness” in all hiring, tenure, and promotion decisions and to compel campuses to prioritize “inclusion” over free and open campus debate. While some faculty members aspire to the revolutionary vanguard, most want to teach and research, and they want to hire and promote colleagues who excel at teaching and research. The accreditors want to replace this faculty with one that shares their priorities. To date, the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior Colleges and Universities Commission has gone furthest with recent changes to its Standards 1, 3, and 4 and a new “Equity and Inclusion Guide” that make it clear that equity should pervade the entire institution.

Yet all is not well for the accreditors. Under the previous administration, the Department of Education established a national marketplace for accreditors by ending their cartel-like hold over their regions. This hasn’t gone down well, and their allies in the Biden administration are seeking to undermine this marketplace. The accreditors are aware of the backlash that is brewing in red states, but they are undaunted. At a recent national meeting of accreditors, a SACSCOC official shared how accreditors can pursue the equity agenda in red states just as zealously as in blue states by adjusting tactics.

All eyes are on Florida, which in 2022 required all public colleges and universities to change their accreditor every five years. Their eyes will soon be on Texas, which is set to establish a state board to rank accreditors and decide which ones can accredit state institutions. Alternative accreditors such as the American Academy for Liberal Education (of which I am the president) have taken notice of the gathering storm and stand ready to help. Alternative quality-assurance standards covering liberal education, classroom excellence, student outcomes based on risk-adjusted metrics, and employment exist and can be used to guide American universities back to a sensible approach to course, program, and institutional excellence.

The University of North Carolina episode has offered us a rare front-row seat to witness what’s wrong with those who shape American higher education at the deepest level. Apparently, intimidating trustees is in order when trustees champion mainstream American civics or free expression. By contrast, silence seems to be in order whenever an American university takes another step down the path of illiberalism. The most incriminating fact about accreditors is that they maintained a disciplined silence over the nearly three decades during which universities descended into speech codes, speaker and viewpoint exclusion, censorship and self-censorship, “loyalty oaths,” and cancellations.

To get a different result, we need to return accreditors to a true focus on quality assurance and put an end to their use of intimidation to impose their political priorities on American universities and colleges.