RE: “The Phony War on Accreditors”

I am disappointed that an organization supposedly committed to academic quality would publish an article so slanted and misleading as the recent piece by Samuel Negus. Mr. Negus portrays my article in the Chronicle of Higher Education as warning of Christian Nationalism, when in fact the article describes that as one of two possible directions for the Trump administration, with the other being less worrisome.

That said, my article did provide evidence of the Christian Nationalist direction, including an example from Hillsdale College’s own accreditor, something that the college should be concerned about if it cares about academic integrity. Why does Mr. Negus ignore that? Is he not concerned? (Additional evidence that the Nationalism concern is not overblown comes from the DOJ’s new pro-Christian task force).

Finally, Mr. Negus tries to portray my views as clueless by putting words in my mouth, declaring my “implicit premise” as being that the current accreditation system is perfect and wonderful. Obviously a straw man argument. I said nothing of the kind, and I am on record with numerous criticisms of accreditors.

-Robert Shireman, Senior Fellow, Century Foundation

P.S. Extremist radical?

*

Samuel Negus responds:

Mr. Shireman responds that I mischaracterize his Chronicle article “as warning of Christian Nationalism” rather than mentioning it as only one of two possible options. Mr. Shireman’s article states: “At the heart of the looming accreditation war is Christian nationalism.” If I missed the ambiguity and nuance in that declarative, forgive me.

As “evidence of the Christian Nationalist direction, including an example from Hillsdale College’s own accreditor,” Mr. Shireman’s Chronicle piece links to articles on Southwest Baptist University’s (SBU’s) brief period on probation and the Higher Learning Commission’s (HLC’s) later decision to reaffirm SBU’s accredited status. HLC’s action letter to SBU is published here. It states that HLC’s “Board determined that the Institution is no longer out of compliance” with the cited criterion. To HLC’s satisfaction in a full institutional review, SBU “clarified the relationship between the Missouri Baptist Convention relative to the autonomy of the [university’s] Board, and rescinded the changes to its charter that would have given control to the Missouri Baptist Convention.” 

SBU’s press release when first placed on probation stated: “This action is based on governance issues and is not a reflection on the quality of SBU’s academic programs.” Two years later, HLC’s action letter removing SBU from probation bears that out. Concerns were raised that an internal struggle over the direction of the institution may have included actions amounting to a change of control without the accreditor’s prior approval. In other words, this was a procedural issue eventually resolved to HLC’s entire satisfaction. This does not suggest a hostile Christian nationalist takeover of my institution’s accrediting agency to me, and, no, I am not concerned. Anyone who wishes to do so may read HLC’s entire policy book here. I have done so several times because it is my job to know these things. I recommend reading these policies only if it is your job, too, or you are having difficulty sleeping. But, rest assured, HLC followed its published policies in this case, as it does in every case and will continue to do.

As further evidence of Christian nationalist influence, Mr. Shireman’s Chronicle article also links to a Newsweek opinion piece by Russ Vought, a leader on the much-ballyhooed Project 2025 and now the Trump administration’s director of the Office of Management and Budget. Shireman never defines Christian nationalism, but Vought calls it “An orientation for engaging in the public square that recognizes America as a Christian nation, where our rights and duties are understood to come from God and where our primary responsibilities as citizens are for building and preserving the strength, prosperity and health of our own country. It is a commitment to an institutional separation between church and state, but not the separation of Christianity from its influence on government and society. It is a belief that our participation in the political system can lead to beneficial outcomes for our own communities, as well as individuals of all faiths.”  Shireman does not demonstrate that Vought or anyone else is placing such logic “at the heart” of the supposedly “looming accreditation war.” Even so, if Vought’s definition here were amended to replace each instance of “Christian/-ity” with “agnostic/-ism” and “God” with “nature” would Mr. Shireman object to it? I suspect not.

Mr. Shireman’s Chronicle article imagines a number of dubiously lawful scenarios by which the Trump administration might conduct its campaign against Title IV gatekeeper agencies. Arguably, the president has taken such shortcuts in other areas. But as I outlined in my piece (anticipating the White House’s recent executive order), accreditation policy does not require such creativity. Civil-rights law requires race-neutrality and prohibits discrimination of any kind, including the “positive discrimination” that pervades DEI policies. The Supreme Court’s SFFA v. Harvard decision upheld that understanding of federal civil-rights law and the 14th amendment. Federal law authorizing the Secretary of Education to recognize accrediting agencies as Title IV gatekeepers requires those agencies to ensure that recipient institutions comply with all applicable statutes, including civil-rights law. Executive order or no, the law requires Education Secretary Linda McMahon to recognize only agencies who accredit institutions in compliance with—not open defiance of—federal law.

Could this be more straightforward? If there is a “strawman” argument here it is the legal chicanery Mr. Shireman offers as terrifying possibilities. The eventuality that really terrifies higher-education administrators is that they may have to choose either to follow civil-rights law as actually written and approved by taxpayers’ elected representatives or forgo the federal subsidies those taxpayers provide.