Public Universities In Six Southern States Form New Accrediting Agency
Public universities in six southern states have formed the Commission for Public Higher Education, a ... More new university accrediting body. getty
Public universities in six southern states have come together to create a new higher education accreditor that will offer an alternative to existing nationally recognized accrediting agencies overseeing the nation's colleges and universities.
The formation of the Commission for Public Higher Education was led by a consortium of public universities that includes Texas A&M University, the State University System of Florida, the University System of Georgia, the University of Tennessee System, the University of North Carolina System and the University of South Carolina System.
Public universities in those states are currently accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges.
The establishment of the new college accreditor comes partly in response to President Trump's long-standing and frequent attacks on accreditors and the accreditation process itself. All six of the consortium states voted for Trump in the last presidential election.
'When I return to the White House, I will fire the radical Left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics,' Trump said in a July 2023 campaign video. 'We will then accept applications for new accreditors who will impose real standards on colleges once again and once and for all,' he added.
Trump has referred to accreditation in the past as his ' secret weapon, ' which critics have feared means that he wants to force accreditors to apply evaluative criteria aligned with his political ideology.
In April, Trump issued an Executive Order, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education , that claimed that accreditors 'routinely approve institutions that are low-quality by the most important measures.'
That order also railed against accreditors setting standards for diversity, equity, and inclusion. And it called for 'recognizing new accreditors to increase competition and accountability in promoting high-quality, high-value academic programs focused on student outcomes.'
Announcing the new accrediting organization at a press conference on Thursday, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis echoed those themes, claiming that Florida had set an example for the nation by "breaking the activist-controlled accreditation monopoly.'
'Today, I announced that a new accreditor, the Commission for Public Higher Education, will offer an alternative that will break the ideological stronghold," said DeSantis. "With transparent, rigorous, outcomes-based standards, this accreditor will help ensure the Free State of Florida leads the way in higher education for decades to come.'
In 2022, Florida passed a law that required its public universities and colleges to periodically change accreditors.
The Commission for Public Higher Education promises a new accreditation model that will focus on 'student outcomes, process efficiency, and the pursuit of excellence," according to the announcement from DeSantis's office. At this point, it appears it will cover only public institutions, and it's possible other states may join the effort in the future.
University leaders praised the creation of the new organization, emphasizing issues such as institutional efficiency and student outcomes rather than employing the political rhetoric that flavored much of DeSantis's comments.
'The University of South Carolina (USC) System accepted the invitation to join five other excellent U.S. university systems to form the Commission for Public Higher Education because innovating accreditation provides great benefits for universities, colleges, and our nation,' said Thad H. Westbrook, Chair of the University of South Carolina Board of Trustees.
'We'll be representing North Carolina's interests and vision, true to our traditions,' University of North Carolina System President Peter Hans told The Assembly . 'Associating with numerous other strong public institutions and engaging in true peer review, that's going to bolster a meaningful exchange of best practices [that] ultimately support the reputation of institutions that choose to participate.'
It's expected that it will take at least two years before the new accreditor gets formal recognition by the U.S. Department of Education. DeSantis said higher education officials are working with the Department of Education to gain an expedited approval of the new accreditation model.
'We need these things approved and implemented during President Trump's term of office, because the reality is, if it doesn't get approved and stick during that time, you can have a president come in next and potentially revoke it, and they could probably do that very quickly,' DeSantis said, according to The Hill .
Accrediting agencies are responsible for determining whether colleges and universities meet certain minimal standards of educational quality and financial integrity. Their gate-keeping role is important for several reasons, not the least of which is that in order for an institution's students to receive federal financial aid, it must be accredited by a "nationally recognized" accrediting agency.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
25 minutes ago
- Associated Press
California Gov. Gavin Newsom sues Fox News over alleged defamation in story about call with Trump
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News on Friday over alleged defamation, saying the network knowingly aired false information about a phone call he had with President Donald Trump around the time the National Guard was sent Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleges Fox News anchor Jesse Watters edited out key information from a clip of Trump talking about calling Newsom, then used the edited video to assert that Newsom had lied about the two talking. Newsom is asking for $787 million in punitive damages in his lawsuit filed in Delaware court where Fox is incorporated. That's the same amount Fox agreed to pay in 2023 to settle a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems. The company said Fox had repeatedly aired false allegations that its equipment had switched votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden during the 2020 election, and the discovery process of the lawsuit revealed Fox's efforts not to alienate conservatives in the network's audience in the wake of Biden's victory. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences -- just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom said in a statement. 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet.' He asked a judge to order Fox News to stop broadcasting 'the false, deceptive, and fraudulent video and accompanying statements' that Newsom said falsely say he lied about when he had spoken to Trump regarding the situation in Los Angeles, where protests erupted on June 6 over Trump's immigration crackdown. Fox News called the lawsuit 'frivolous.' 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him. We will defend this case vigorously and look forward to it being dismissed,' the company said in a statement. The law makes it difficult to prove defamation, but some cases result in settlements and, no matter the disposition, can tie up news outlets in expensive legal fights. Particularly since taking office a second time, Trump has been aggressive in going after news organizations he feels has wronged him. He's involved in settlement talks over his lawsuit against CBS News about a '60 Minutes' interview last fall with Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. This week, Trump's lawyers threatened a lawsuit against CNN and The New York Times over their reporting of an initial assessment of damage to Iran's nuclear program from a U.S. bombing. Newsom's lawsuit centers on the details of a phone call with the president. Both Newsom and the White House have said the two spoke late at night on June 6 in California, which was already June 7 on the East Coast. Though the content of the call is not part of the lawsuit, Newsom has said the two never discussed Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard, which he announced the next day. Trump said the deployment was necessary to protect federal buildings from people protesting increased immigration arrests. Trump later announced he would also deploy Marines to the area. On June 10, when 700 Marines arrived in the Los Angeles area, Trump told reporters he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago' about his decision to send troops. That day, Newsom posted on X that there had been no call. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' Newsom wrote. On the evening of June 10, the Watters Primetime show played a clip of Trump's statement about his call with Newsom but removed Trump's comment that the call was 'a day ago,' the lawsuit said. Watters also referred to call logs another Fox News reporter had posted online showing the phone call the two had on June 6. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' Watters asked on air, according to the lawsuit. The segment included text across the bottom of the screen that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.' Newsom's suit argues that by editing the material, Fox 'maliciously lied as a means to sabotage informed national discussion.' Precise details about when the call happened are important because the days when Trump deployed the Guard to Los Angeles despite Newsom's opposition 'represented an unprecedented moment,' Newsom's lawyers wrote in a letter to Fox demanding a retraction and on-air apology. 'History was occurring in real time. It is precisely why reporters asked President Trump the very question that prompted this matter: when did he last speak with Governor Newsom,' the letter said. ___ Associated Press journalist David Bauder contributed to this report.
The Hill
25 minutes ago
- The Hill
Judge won't block DOGE access to sensitive government data
A federal judge ruled Friday that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) can continue to access sensitive data on millions of Americans at certain agencies, handing at least a temporary defeat to the labor unions that have sued to block the practice. Judge John D. Bates of the U.S. District Court in D.C. declined to grant the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction against the Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services, pending further proceedings in the case. The AFL-CIO and other unions filed a lawsuit seeking to prevent DOGE employees from accessing information such as medical files, financial histories, social security numbers, and addresses. In his ruling, Bates said that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient evidence of harm to merit an injunction, although he remained concerned about the prospect of DOGE's access. 'Absent evidence those personnel will imminently misuse or publicly disclose that information, the Court cannot say that irreparable harm will clearly occur before the Court can make a final determination on the merits,' he wrote. 'And without irreparable harm, a preliminary injunction cannot issue.' Still, Bates acknowledged the sensitivity of the data access, writing that the 'DOGE Affiliates have their hands on some of the most personal information individuals entrust to the government.' '[T]he Court's concerns are as grave as ever, and it stands ready to remedy plaintiffs' harm should they ultimately succeed on the merits,' he wrote. Bates asked the parties to propose a schedule for reaching summary judgment. The ruling is yet another setback for the labor unions, who first brought their suit in February and have been twice denied temporary restraining orders. Bates himself has ruled on a number of Trump-related cases and has at times drawn ire from the president. He has ordered the administration to restore certain government websites and ruled that Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Jenner & Block was unconstitutional. A host of lawsuits over DOGE's access to private government data are slowly playing out across federal courts. A federal judge ruled last week that the government must submit a report detailing DOGE's level of access to personally identifiable information at the Office of Personnel Management in response to another lawsuit filed by the AFL-CIO. The Supreme Court earlier this month allowed DOGE to proceed in its efforts at the Social Security Administration, staying a preliminary injunction in a case brought by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.
CNBC
25 minutes ago
- CNBC
Trump calls New York Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani 'a communist'
President Donald Trump on Friday called New York City Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani "a communist," and said the Big Apple will become "a communistic city" if he is elected mayor in November. "I can't believe that's happening," Trump told reporters at the White House. "That's a terrible thing for our country, by the way." Trump's comments came three days after Mamdani — who is a democratic socialist, not a communist — scored a stunning victory over former New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in the first round of the city's Democratic mayoral primary. Cuomo conceded to Mamdani late Tuesday night, acknowledging the strong likelihood that the next round of the primary's ranked-choice voting system would confirm Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, as the Democratic Party's nominee. Mamdani won the initial primary round despite the fact that many prominent Democrats had endorsed Cuomo. His victory has sent some major investors, New York business leaders and conservative news commentators into a tizzy over the now-very-real possibility that Mamdani, a three-term state assemblyman, will be the mayor of America's largest city. Mamdani's campaign platform calls for an increase in the corporate tax rate, higher taxes on the wealthy, a rent freeze and free buses. Trump acknowledged the alarm over Mandani among business leaders, saying they are "worried that somebody like this communist from New York someday gets elected." "He's a communist. We're going to go to a communistic city," said the president. "That's so bad for New York." CNBC has requested comment from Mamdani's campaign about Trump's remarks. Phillip Laffront, founder of the Coatue Management hedge fund, told CNBC on Wednesday that if Mamdani wins the general election, some wealthy investors could decide to move away from the city. "Some people are going to, for sure, go," Laffont said on "Squawk Box." Cuomo has not yet announced whether he plans to run for mayor this fall as an independent. New York City's current mayor, Eric Adams, is already seeking re-election as an independent candidate. Initially elected as a Democrat, Adams decided earlier this year to run for re-election as an independent, rather than ask fellow Democrats to nominate him on the party's ballot. Adams has become increasingly unpopular in New York after he was indicted in September on federal corruption charges brought by the Department of Justice when Democratic former President Joe Biden was still in office. After Trump took office in January, the DOJ asked a judge to dismiss the case against Adams, arguing that prosecuting the mayor would interfere with his ability to govern the city and to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, a priority for the new president. Seven federal prosecutors, including the acting Manhattan U.S. Attorney whose office was handling the case, resigned in protest over the DOJ's effort to drop Adams' prosecution. In April, District Court Judge Dale Hole dismissed the case against Adams with prejudice, meaning that it cannot be resurrected by the DOJ when Adams leaves office. In his order, Ho blasted the Justice Department, which had initially wanted the case dismissed without prejudice, which would allow prosecutors to re-open the case at some point, potentially. "Everything here smacks of a bargain: dismissal of the indictment in exchange for immigration policy concessions" by Adams, Ho wrote. The judge said that dismissing the case without prejudice "would create the unavoidable perception that the Mayor's freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration."
