What should we do about college accreditation?

College accreditation is a little-understood aspect of our system of higher education. Most people don’t know how it operates, but believe that accreditation is a guarantee of reasonably good educational quality.

Sadly, that is far from the truth. A college or university can be accredited and yet offer pathetically weak academic programs. A recent report issued by the U.S. Department of Labor tears into the accreditation system with surprising frankness.

In “The Need for Accreditation Reform,” Robert C. Dickeson begins by explaining that “The standards for accreditation…are based on an institution’s self-study of the extent to which the institution feels it has met its own purposes.” Since college and university mission statements are never couched in precise language about educational results, that means that accrediting bodies don’t focus on questions pertaining to the central point of college life (what do students learn?) but rather on peripheral matters.


Commission publishes

The Commission on the Future of Higher Education reconvened today in Indianapolis hosting a two-day meeting. It is the fourth such meeting since Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings organized the group to examine higher education issues in America today. This week’s meeting focuses on affordability and accreditation.

As a prelude to various meetings, the Commission has released several “Issue Papers” that discuss different topics that have come before the board. It is believed that the “Issue Papers” will help the Commission in their work and ultimate policy recommendation, which could come later this year.


Should the American Bar Association accredit law schools?

On March 8, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) issued a public statement calling on the U.S. Department of Education to oppose renewal of recognition of the American Bar Association (ABA) as the accrediting body for legal education. What is at stake is this: only ABA-accredited schools can currently accept federal student aid money. A law school that doesn’t obtain or loses ABA accreditation can continue to operate – and some do – but they are restricted to students who don’t depend on federal grants and loans to help pay for their expenses.

Obviously, the law as it now stands gives the ABA enormous influence over law schools. Since many of them would have a much smaller student body if they lost the students who need federal aid, they are as obedient as trained poodles to the whims of the ABA’s accrediting council. But so what?

The NAS press release explains why they oppose continuation of the ABA as the gatekeeper for access to federal dollars. Recently, the ABA has proposed new accrediting standards that would compel law schools to adopt “diversity” policies having nothing to do with educational excellence and which would sink law schools further into the morass of social engineering. “Unless the ABA eliminates all requirements of racial, ethnic, and gender diversity from its accrediting standards,” continuing to give it power to declare law schools acceptable or not is, the NAS argues, “inappropriate.”


Campus events should promote debate, not anger

On the afternoon of Friday, March 3, an act of terrorism at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill left the university community in disbelief. Why would a former student would ram an SUV into a group of students?

Mohammad Reza Taheri-azar, 22, an Iranian native who graduated from UNC-Chapel Hill last December, rented a Jeep Cherokee Laredo and launched his attack on a student assembly area known as “The Pit.” Nine people were injured in Taheri-azar’s rampage. He appeared in Orange County District Court on Monday where he was arraigned on 18 charges, including nine counts of attempted murder.

Given that Chapel Hill is a university that prides itself on its welcoming and inclusive environment for students, the question is why Taheri-azar would attempt to kill some of his former classmates. The Associated Press reported that Taheri-azar “allegedly made statements that he acted to avenge the American treatment of Muslims.” He also told a 911 dispatcher that “the reason is to punish the government of the United States for their actions around the world.” Comments he made to police detectives and court officials indicate that Taheri-azar thought he would become a hero in the radical Islam community for injuring and attempting to kill college students.


Controversy surrounds DTH cartoon

CHAPEL HILL – For the second time this school year, The Daily Tar Heel, UNC-Chapel Hill’s student newspaper, is in the middle of a firestorm over content in its publication. This time the criticism comes from UNC-Chapel Hill administrators.

On Thursday, the student newspaper published a controversial cartoon of Muhammad – the founder of the Islam – showing him in between two windows. In the first window – one showing Danish flags – Muhammad is quoted as saying “They may get me from my bad side.” The second window – which shows a scene following a terrorist incident – he says “… but they show me from my worst.” Philip McFee, an UNC-Chapel Hill student, drew the cartoon.


Tar Heels Turn it Green With Inefficient Solar Power Program

Morrison Residence Hall at UNC-Chapel Hill was closed in the spring of 2005 for renovation. When it reopens in the fall of 2007, not only will students’ accommodations be nicer, but solar panels will be used to heat the building’s water.

While many campus activists and administrators are excited about the project, the solar heating system is financially inefficient.

The new Morrison Hall will have about 200 solar panels placed on the roof and their energy will heat about 60 percent of the building’s hot water. From that, a saving of $11,275 annually is projected.

The solar hot water system is funded by a $137,455 grant from the state legislature, $184,000 from student fees, and $125,000 from University housing and residential education funds. The project was originally anticipated to cost $309,000, but estimates are now as high as $446,000.


The Top 10 Nuttiest Campus Events in N.C. 2005

The holiday season is full of traditions. Reporters scour stores looking for toys that could kill your kids. Lawyers’ offices fill with activist atheists upset that some poor soul wishes them “Merry Christmas.” And the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy compiles its annual top 10 list.


Dialogue sought on higher education

RALEIGH — The U.S. Department of Education has appointed a commission that will engage in what U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings termed a “national dialogue” about the role of higher education in the 21st century. The 18-member Commission on the Future of Higher Education, including professors, university presidents, business leaders and government officials, will release a report next year.

Spellings said she hopes the commission will not only find ways to improve higher education but also ways for higher education to meet the needs of an increasingly global economy. The commission is expected to release its recommendations to the public in August.


Filmmaker points to bias in higher education

Evan Coyne Maloney experienced academic biases in higher education first hand as a student at Bucknell University in Pennsylvania. At the time, he thought the bias problem might be limited just to Bucknell.

That was until he read Illiberal Education by Dinesh D’Souza and heard about how students at other colleges faced similar situations of academic bias in the classroom. Now, 11 years after Maloney graduated from Bucknell, he is educating others on the problem of academic bias through a series of video documentaries that have received critical acclaim.

Maloney’s video documentary series on higher education is entitled “Brainwashing.” There have been two installments “Brainwashing 101,” and “Brainwashing 201: The Second Semester.” “Brainwashing 201” recently won Best Short Film at the Liberty Film Festival in October.


Racial Preferences – The Issue that Won’t Go Away

Consider, if you will, the virtue of simple rules. The First Amendment to the Constitution is a simple rule. It says that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. Although the government hasn’t always followed it, having a sharp constitutional line has undoubtedly spared the country a great deal of meddling with free speech. With a simple rule, violations are readily apparent.

Now imagine that the First Amendment instead went like this: “Congress shouldn’t enact laws that abridge the freedom of speech unless it thinks that there is a pretty good reason to do so.” If the Founders had given us so vague and equivocal a rule, there would probably be much less freedom to speak without fear of legal repercussions today.