Why Trump's threat to pull Columbia's accreditation is so ominous

Yahoo

8 hours ago

I suspect that even casual followers of the news have heard about the ongoing battles between the government and higher education. First there's House Republicans' plan to increase taxes on university endowments, and now President Donald Trump's administration is threatening Columbia University's accreditation.
As a college president, I know what these threats mean, but I've found myself having to explain them to folks who aren't higher ed nerds like me. Accreditation, I tell them, is what people Gen X or older might think of like a Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval, but for colleges and universities, accreditation is not just something that's nice for a university to have; it's something a university needs to have if it expects to offer any kind of financial aid to its students.
The vast majority of college students receive some form of financial aid, so even the wealthiest of institutions understand that accreditation is important. That's why it's so ominous that the Trump administration, which claims that Columbia insufficiently handled expressions of antisemitism on its campus, contacted the university's accreditor alleging that the university is no longer eligible to be accredited.
According to a statement from the Department of Education, Columbia 'failed to meaningfully protect Jewish students against severe and pervasive harassment on Columbia's campus and consequently denied these students' equal access to educational opportunities to which they are entitled under the law.'
Columbia issued a statement that said it is 'deeply committed to combating antisemitism on our campus,' that it's 'aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights today,' and that it has 'addressed those concerns directly' with its accreditor.
Prior to the first Trump administration, there were seven regional accreditors that were responsible for assuring that most colleges and universities operate at standards that signify what they do is done well and in order. Each accrediting agency developed a set of standards requiring that an institution, generally in five- to 10-year intervals, conduct a self-study to ensure that it continues to meet them. The institution must then submit a report to its accrediting agency. Then, a team of colleagues reviews the materials, and depending on the agency and its timelines, that team or another visits the campus to certify that what was submitted is accurate and that the institution is in good standing and keeps its 'seal of approval.'
During the first Trump administration, the practice of regional accreditors as the primary determinants of accreditation was changed. All accreditors are viewed as national accreditors, including some with more of a niche focus like Christian colleges, that have the same power to certify that an institution is eligible for federal financial aid. This provides several options now for schools to be accredited, and more than 30 accreditors exist today.
Accreditation is essentially about continuous improvement through constant assessment. Even the peer review process is designed not to simply determine if the standards are met, but if they are not, to identify weaknesses and provide feedback for improvement to meet those standards. While not meant to be a punitive process, the various agencies do have a series of steps in place to heighten an institution's urgency to address any deficiencies. There are generally levels of sanctions that an institution might receive, from a monitoring report to show progress made on deficiencies, to a public warning, which allows anyone to know what the institution must do to improve, and finally some kind of probationary period in which significant deficiencies must be corrected.
While rare, accrediting agencies can cease to recognize an institution for failure to meet the standards set. It would take several years, though, for a school to get to the place where it loses accreditation — and even if accreditation is lost, most agencies have processes in place that allow schools to appeal that decision. There are multiple examples of schools successfully appealing a loss of accreditation and working their way back into good standing.
When the Trump administration contacted the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, which accredits Columbia, it simply began a process to review the charges. Different commissions might handle these notices in different ways. Under the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, the accrediting agency I'm most familiar with, 'unsolicited information,' such as a letter from the federal government or a local news article covering a negative event, could begin such a review.
But accreditation is a process, so even a letter from the administration would not create an immediate negative action as accreditors engage in a thoughtful and deliberate process to verify compliance with the standards. Again, the goal is continuous improvement, not punishment.
If a school is out of compliance, the accreditor will take action. But this would occur only after working closely with the institution, giving it a chance to correct course on its own.
Columbia, in the short term at least, doesn't appear to be at any risk of not being able to provide its students financial aid.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com