Introduction

Accrediting organizations play a vital role in imposing race and sex preferences and other discriminatory policies on institutions of higher education. Discriminatory accreditation requirements leave institutions of higher education no practical choice about whether to comply, since they will lose eligibility for federal student aid if they fail to do so. Many higher education administrators prefer to discriminate in any case, and the accreditation requirements provide them an excuse that they can present to policymakers, trustees, and citizens. Discriminatory accreditation requirements are wrong in themselves. They also damage the higher education system in general, because they remove higher education administrators’ accountability to their universities’ constituents.

Politicized accreditation requirements ought generally to be removed. We focus here on the most egregious abuse of the accreditation system, which subverts the Civil Rights Act by imposing race and sex preference by means of a variety of euphemistic accreditation requirements. The Accreditation Nondiscrimination Act,

1. prohibits accreditors from using any means to impose discriminatory policies on institutions of higher education;
2. prohibits accreditors from imposing discriminatory policies on their own personnel or on accreditation peer reviewers;
3. requires accreditors to limit accreditation to institutions that guarantee they do not discriminate;
4. authorizes both the Education Department and the Justice Department to enforce this Act; and
5. authorizes any citizen, business, or nonprofit entity with demonstrable connections to the accreditor to sue the accreditor in a court of law to enforce this Act.

We have framed the Accreditation Nondiscrimination Act as an amendment to 20 U.S. Code § 1099b - Recognition of accrediting agency or association. We would welcome bills that achieve the same intent by adaptation of other parts of the federal statutes. We also would welcome executive orders or Education Department agency rules that achieve the same goal—although federal legislation would be preferable, since executive orders and agency rules can be revoked more easily.

We also would welcome state laws and administrative requirements that work toward the same end. Federal reform of accreditors, however, is essential, because it is accreditors’ ability to determine eligibility for federal student aid that grants them their power.

The Act provides enforcement for its requirements by stating that, “If non-compliance is found after such investigation, the accreditor the Education Department shall rescind recognition of the non-compliant accreditor as an accrediting agency or association.” We recognize that this is a drastic sanction. Yet we fear that if the Education Department is allowed to provide lighter sanctions that its personnel may abuse the loophole to make this Act a dead letter. We will not object if this Act is modified to provide a graduated series of sanctions, leading up to de-recognition of a non-compliant accreditor—but we caution that any such modification should be carefully drafted so as to ensure that the Act will still ensure compliance, both by Education Department personnel and by accreditors.

Model Legislative Text

SECTION A. SHORT TITLE

This Act may be cited as the “Accreditation Nondiscrimination Act of {20XX}”.

SECTION B. ACCREDITATION REFORM

1. In General.— 20 U.S. Code § 1099b - Recognition of accrediting agency or association is amended by adding at the end the following new section:

"1. No accreditation standard, guidance, requirement, self-study, program review, external evaluation, or any other policy, may recommend, advantage, require, or make a condition of accreditation, that an institution of higher education, or any school, department, or office within it:

"a. alter the composition of the student body, the faculty, or any other employees, to increase or decrease the absolute or proportionate number of any race, ethnicity, sex, or membership in any other identity group;

"b. pursue a goal such as access, differing life experiences, diversity, cultural awareness, cultural competence, equity, fairness, inclusion, recruitment, retention, or social justice if such a goal can only be achieved in part or in full by altering the composition of the student body, the faculty, or any other employees, to increase or decrease the absolute or proportionate number of any race, ethnicity, sex, or membership in any other identity group; or

"c. fulfill any ideal in the mission statement of the institution of higher education, or any school, department, or office within the institution of higher education, by altering the composition of the student body, the faculty, or any other employees, to increase or decrease the absolute or proportionate number of any race, ethnicity, sex, or membership in any other identity group.

"2. No accreditor may enact any policy to increase or decrease the absolute or proportionate number of any race, ethnicity, sex, or membership in any other identity group of the personnel of the accreditor itself, accreditation peer reviewers, or any body of paid or unpaid personnel who take part in the accreditation process.

"3. Accreditors may only accredit institutions that affirm and guarantee that they will provide no advantage or disadvantage on the basis of membership in groups defined by characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression in admissions, hiring, promotion, tenuring, workplace conditions, or any other program, policy, or activity.

"4. The Education or Justice Department shall enforce this Act and shall investigate credible complaints of noncompliance brought by any American citizen. If non-compliance is found after such investigation, the Education Department shall rescind recognition of the non-compliant accreditor as an accrediting agency or association.

"5. Any American citizen or lawfully constituted American business or non-profit entity with demonstrable connections to the accreditor may also sue the accreditor in a court of law to enforce this Act. Such complainant may also request compensation for harm suffered from noncompliance, if any, as well as recover legal and other costs incurred to sue.”

SECTION C. SEPARABILITY
If any provision of this Act, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this Act and the application of its provisions to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.