Accreditation’s Heating Up

Accreditation in higher ed is back in the headlines. Not because it’s exciting, but because politics is poking around where it doesn’t always belong — and it’s starting to sting.

There’s a fresh round of talk about opening the doors to new accrediting bodies. On the surface? Sounds great. More options. More flexibility. Institutions choosing accreditors that "fit their mission." What's not to like?

Well. Plenty. Let’s unpack this.

What Could Go Right: Competition and Tailored Standards

There’s a legitimate argument here. Groups like AEI see breaking up the existing accreditation structure as a way to spark real competition. New players could bring in fresh standards that actually match the kind of institutions we’re seeing emerge. For example, tech bootcamps don’t need to be measured by the same yardstick as a centuries-old liberal arts college.[1]

The Department of Ed has already signaled it’s willing to make switching accreditors easier, especially for schools under financial pressure.[5] That kind of flexibility might help some institutions find firmer footing and offer meaningful options for learners.

There’s even a scenario where new accreditors strengthen protections for academic freedom, by building faculty governance and intellectual independence into their standards. The Century Foundation has made that case and it’s worth serious consideration.[4]

What Could Go Very, Very Wrong: Accreditation as a Political Weapon

But here’s the problem: once you open the gates wide, anyone can walk in. Including folks who aren’t interested in academic quality, but very interested in pushing an agenda.

Jeremy Penn hit this hard in Inside Higher Ed — many of these "reform" efforts aren’t about improving education at all. They’re about reengineering higher ed to fit one side’s political narrative.[2]

The recent attacks on DEI? They’re not some earnest bid for fairness. They’re about narrowing who gets to speak, not expanding debate. And if accreditors become partisan tools, we’re in dangerous territory. That’s not oversight — that’s a loyalty test. The last thing higher ed needs is a reboot of 1920s-style Scopes trial showdowns where politicians decide what science counts.

What Needs to Happen Instead

If we’re going to let new accreditors in the game, then guardrails matter. Real ones:

• Transparent, consistent quality standards.
• Legitimate oversight and peer review.
• Strong protections for academic freedom.
• Focus on student outcomes, not ideology.

Reform is on the table — and that’s good. The system does need to evolve. But turning accreditation into a political football? That’s a fast way to gut the credibility of American higher ed and drag us into global irrelevance.

Let’s fix what needs fixing. Let's help every single learner fulfill their potential and improve their lives.

Sources:

1. American Enterprise Institute: A Template for Considering New University Accreditors, 2025. 
2. Jeremy D. Penn, Accreditation Needs Reform, but Not Like This, Inside Higher Ed, May 28, 2025. 
3. Higher Ed Dive, reactions to recent executive orders reshaping accreditation, 2025. 
4. The Century Foundation, Academic Freedom Is Under Attack. College Accreditors May Be the Best Line of Defense, 2024. 
5. Inside Higher Ed, ED Announces Further Changes to Accreditation, May 2, 2025.