September 9, 2026
The Department of Education has proposed a sweeping and highly damaging politicization of the accreditation system that would undermine the quality and innovation of the U.S. higher education system, curtail academic and intellectual freedom, and harm students.
The U.S. higher education system is successful and admired around the world because it offers high-quality education, functions independently of political interference, and fosters innovative and ground-breaking research.
Accreditation in the U.S.—traditionally an apolitical process—plays a large role in that. Accreditors are independent organizations that evaluate a school's academics, admissions, faculty, student outcomes, governance, compliance with federal regulations, and more in order to ensure educational quality and institutional integrity. Importantly, a college or university must be accredited in order to receive federal money for student financial aid.
The accreditation rule changes proposed by the DOE would politicize this powerful gate-keeping function to bring our colleges and universities to heel and would, in the process, undermine the very strengths that make U.S. schools exemplary.
The federal government could exert ideological control over what is taught and researched. The new rules would require accreditors to evaluate whether "a range of academic perspectives" could be expressed among the faculty and whether the school has policies that "support, promote, and appropriately prioritize intellectual diversity." This would require accreditors to monitor and evaluate "intellectual diversity" and "academic perspectives" on campus, although no definitions or guidelines exist. To protect themselves, colleges would likely prioritize faculty and curricula that are clearly in line with the federal government's favored perspectives. This completely overthrows academic freedom, which relies on peer review and subject matter experts to determine which topics and views are at the forefront of a field, rather than political functionaries.
Vague language and requirements that are likely illegal will pressure schools into overcompliance with a politicized agenda. Once more, the Department of Education is attempting to weaponize skewed definitions of "civil rights" and "discrimination" and thereby shut down any efforts on behalf of diversity, equity, or inclusion. For example, the proposed rule prohibits accreditors from encouraging schools to "provide any preferences on the basis of race," implying that this would be a violation of federal law. However, allowing affinity groups based on race, providing counseling for students who face racial discrimination, and offering other forms of student support are not illegal. Still, to protect themselves, schools may opt to slash services and programs that could lead to costly and risky legal battles.
Safeguards for quality would be undermined. Given the government's preference for accreditors that are more likely to comply with its agenda, the proposed rule would encourage new and inexperienced accreditors to enter the field with few barriers to entry. In turn, accreditors are encouraged to reduce barriers for schools offering "new educational models," perhaps encouraging schools to adopt unproven instructional models. And at the same time, schools would no longer need to conduct self-studies or participate in peer review to confirm they are meeting their institutional missions and objectives. Taken together, these proposals would likely diminish the overall quality of higher education in the U.S. and leave many students with low-quality educations and worthless degrees.