Governor DeSantis Proposes New College Accrediting Board

That is interesting. I’ve run our undergraduate SACS accreditation review, and there wasn’t any section on DEI. In fact, unlike how DeSantis is painting it, it’s mostly based on student achievement, productivity, and usefulness. Here are the five aspects we had to address in our last review:

1. Description of program

Eg “Provide a brief overview of the mission(s) and purpose(s) of the degree program(s) within the context of the university mission and the Board of Governors’ Strategic Plan.”
​

2. Student demand for program

Eg “Provide national, state and/or local data that support the continuing need for more people to be prepared in this program at this level.”
​

3. Student success

Eg “Summarize the results of the most recent three years of student learning outcomes assessments focusing on how well students are achieving the defined learning outcomes.”
​

4. Program productivity

Eg “Discuss the productivity of your program(s) in terms of the following: Student credit hours generated, Student FTE, Degrees awarded, Percent of undergraduates without excess credit hours
​

5. Program strengths and weaknesses

Eg “Discuss potential opportunities in the following areas: 1. New ventures to increase demand or improve competitiveness. 2. Actions to achieve productivity gains. 3. Actions to improve efficiency and reduce cost.”
​

Was yours not the same?

 

Lots of examples in that article:

It’s Time for Congress to Dismantle the Higher Education Accreditation Cartel

FWIW…this is a great read for anyone who wants to fully understand this issue.

From the article:

In July 2019, the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities (NWCCU) intervened in Alaska’s budget decisions. The NWCCU wrote the state legislature threatening the accreditation of the state’s universities unless the legislature appropriated more money. [10]

In its role as an accreditor of law schools, the American Bar Association bullied the law school of George Mason University beginning in 2000, demanding that the school use racial preferences in admissions. The school initially resisted but ultimately backed down, yet “still the ABA was not satisfied…. The law school finally got its reaccreditation after six long years of abuse—just in time for the next round in the seven-year reaccreditation process.” [11]

Accreditors, including programmatic accreditors, also mandate politicized standards, which can even conflict with federal law:

• In 2006, the sole accreditor of law schools, the American Bar Association, effectively required law schools to use racial preferences in admissions and in faculty and staff hiring, in violation of the race neutrality required by California law and federal law known as Title VI. In response, the American Law Deans Association complained that the accreditor “inappropriately inserts itself into the internal affairs of the institutions it accredits…in a way that forces homogeneity, and conversely stifles innovation and diversity, among law schools.” [12]
• The Council of Social Work Education (CSWE) Commission on Accreditation requires that social work programs produce graduates who “understand the pervasive impact of White supremacy and privilege”; “demonstrate anti-racist and anti-oppressive social work practice”; and know “the global intersecting and ongoing injustices throughout history that result in oppression and racism.” [13]
• The New England Commission of Higher Education requires that an institution have “goals for the achievement of diversity, equity, and inclusion [DEI] among its students.” [14]
• Apart from official standards, accrediting agencies demonstrate a distinctively left-leaning agenda that is likely at odds with many colleges. Nevertheless, colleges must bow to the accreditation cartel. For example, as The Heritage Foundation’s Jonathan Butcher recently detailed:
• The Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges pledged to create a “climate” of “anti-racism” among schools it accredits.[15]
• The NWCCU “has a set of ‘anti-racism resources’ on their [sic] website, which includes material produced by the radical Southern Poverty Law Center’s education arm, Learning for Justice. [16] The material includes information on ‘identity, power, and justice’, along with ‘gender-neutral practices.’ The resource page also includes an article from Racial Equity Tools called ‘Whiteness and White Privilege.’” [17]

​

 

What we’ve learned the past few years is not that conservatives want academic freedom. They want control over academia. There is a difference. We saw it on display at the BOG the last month. Rejected an experienced university president and then appointed three inexperienced politicians to academic leadership a few weeks later.

 

Poster should note that the OPINION piece from the Heritage Foundation does not provide evidence of findings, but simply infers and suggests opinion as evidence. Since the Heritage Foundation is 100% politically motivated , the bias is apparent. It is seldom compelling to use a radical opinion as a verifying resource.

 

Very specific instances with dates, the educational institutions involved, the accrediting bodies involved, and statements and actions taken by those accrediting bodies against those educational institutions are included in that article with sources. You may not like the publisher of the article, but they cited many sources independent of the Heritage Foundation that clearly outline the political nature of the actions and words of these accrediting bodies.

 

That and a reminder that the Heritage Foundation is the architect of Project 2025.

 

In an introductory logic class we would call that an ad hominem argument, which is a fallacious way to avoid dealing with the substance of an argument or in this case an article that sources facts from other sources.

 

Technically by posting the link without comment you were guilty of appeal to authority, Mr. Logic 101

 

Not a single one of those SACS examples dealt with "DEI." They were examples of the Heritage Foundation wanting SACS not to investigate conflicts of interest and attempts by state politicians to either name themselves University Presidents or interfere in the selection of University Presidents when they are not supposed to do so.

 

Not really. A link with specific examples was requested. That is a link that has examples with citations in spades. The better response would be to refute the specific instances claimed in the article rather than complaining about the source.

 

You were basically saying "the Heritage Foundation says I'm right" ... its just the inverse of the thing you are complaining about another poster doing. And as another poster has pointed out, it doesnt even support your argument.

 

Mine was not undergrad. It was high school, which SACS is also involved in, but I was not involved in detail with this part of the accreditation. We split it all up amongst everyone in the school, and I was not involved in the administrative part of it. I don’t remember the source where that info came from as it was years ago, but I was responsible for the preplanning process leading up to the accreditation for my subject area. I left during the actual year where the accreditation team came in, but I was told everything I had prepared for it was said to be well done by the accreditation team.

 

There's a part of me that wants to disagree with this, but. . . Education is another area that is just desperately crying for a 3rd-way solution. That said, any solutions presented by MAGA would just amount to same thing, but a religious angle instead of a postmodern angle.

Again, BEGGING for a 3rd-way solution.

 

An estimated 85 percent of colleges are accredited by a handful of regional accreditors, and accreditation is a requirement for postsecondary schools that enroll students who use federal loans to pay tuition. More than half of individuals who completed a certificate degree, associate’s degree, or bachelor’s degree use a federal student loan at some point in their postsecondary experience. Over 90 percent of all college loans are underwritten by the federal government, so postsecondary institutions have little choice but to seek and maintain accreditation with a federally approved accreditor.

In order to be accredited, school officials must align school policies with accreditors’ standards. These standards are not simply a list of health and safety rules and certain academic expectations. In fact, accreditors are as ideologically radical as the institutions they accredit. This is not surprising, as some two-thirds of the individuals who perform the accrediting and review processes—called commissioners—are employees at colleges and universities that engage in, and fully support, racial discrimination in admissions and the teaching of critical race propaganda.

Accreditors are aligned with radical positions on race commonly found in higher education:

• The Western Association of Schools and Colleges’ (WASC’s) Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC) mentions “diversity, equity, and inclusion” five times in its new standards guidebook, adopted in November 2022. The accreditor offers training sessions for schools to help college administrators “use a justice, equity, diversity and inclusion (JEDI) lens in order to navigate complex institutional priorities,” a session meant to “transform” these radical racially focused ideas into “action.”
• The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges supports the expansion of DEI offices on their accredited schools’ campuses.
• The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities lists a set of “anti-racism resources” on its website, which includes material produced by the radical Southern Poverty Law Center’s education arm, Learning for Justice. The material includes information on “identity, power, and justice,” along with “gender-neutral practices.” The resource page also includes an article from Racial Equity Tools called “Whiteness and White Privilege,” which, again, is not focused on student achievement or success but on identity politics and critical race theory.
• The Middle States Commission on Higher Education signed on to an amicus brief supporting “the legality and value of race-conscious admissions” in the North Carolina and Harvard cases.
• The Higher Learning Commission provides “diversity, equity, and inclusion” resources on its website and highlights accredited institutions that provide such offices and training on their campuses. Such offices promote the discriminatory ideas of critical race theory, such as intersectionality and so-called antiracism. A significant body of research and surveys, though, have shown that diversity and “antibias” programs do not change individual attitudes and behavior.
• The WASC’s Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges released a “Policy on Social Justice” in June 2021 pledging to create a “climate” of “anti-racism” among accredited schools. The accreditor will select more reviewers based on race, not experience or skill, and will “infuse anti-racism discussions” into professional development programs.
• At its 2022 annual meeting, the New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE) held a session on “gender inclusivity”; two sessions on “equity”; and a closing keynote presentation on the need for DEI in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education.

Racial prejudice permeates higher education, not just by virtue of the courses and activities hosted by institutions themselves but by the race-consciousness pushed by organizations that accredit them—with the backing of the federal government.

Policymakers Should Use Supreme Court Cases on Racial Preferences to Launch Reform of College Accreditation

Another good article from the Heritage Foundation on this topic.

 

Article lists cases of SACS that Heritage takes opposition towards, which by my opinion, I'd often side with Heritage. Note by virtue of a case existing, it does not confer right nor wrong. Nothing listed focused on DEI. For instance the Fl case where the politician stepped in to overturn longstanding board decision territory was MADE political by the Governor, not SACS. In my yrs of dealing with SACS as an educator, politicization of SACS was not ever a concern.

 

We triangulated ourselves into where we are at, no thanks. Inevitably this always means "accept the right-wing critique, but go half-ass instead of full ass." People keep wanting to play the James Carville hits from 1992 and hope they are magically transported back to the last time anything made sense to them, the 90s.

 

Who cares

 

I’m so tired of people from outside higher ed acting like they know enough about higher ed to weigh in on this. I’ve know many who have worked in this space and have been a part of it. All the questions I’ve ever seen have been basic academic, operational, and financial accountability related questions. Accreditation is annoying but it’s been politicized far more than necessary. Just one more way the right wants control over higher ed. It has nothing to do with quality or accountability

 

OK, @coleg requested an ad hominem argument since he asked for a link. Please inquire with him if you have any further objections.

 

Indeed. Though I don’t see SACS as guilty of the crimes MAGA accuses it, I do think having no competition will always lead us astray in the long run. I just can’t see how a Republican designed alternative would solve the problems of politicization in education.