3 days ago
Is Columbia Or An Accreditor The Real Target In Trump's Latest Salvo?
Is the Trump administration's threat to Columbia University's accreditation the real target, or is ... More it the accreditation process itself?
The U.S. Department of Education has notified Columbia University's accreditor that it believes the university has violated federal anti-discrimination laws and 'therefore fails to meet the standards for accreditation.'
Wednesday's notice to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education has made big news and been widely interpreted to be an escalation of the Trump administration's pressure campaign against elite universities.
Columbia has been in those crosshairs for weeks, starting with the administration announcement in March that it was canceling $400 million in federal grants and contracts because of what it said was 'the school's continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.'
While this latest threat to Columbia opens a new front in the administration's attacks on the university, it's important to be clear-eyed about all of what could be at stake here.
First, the federal government cannot remove a university's accreditation. That's an action that only can be taken — although it rarely is — by one of the seven nationally recognized accrediting agencies that oversee most of the nation's colleges and universities and are responsible for determining whether they meet certain standards of quality.
The gate-keeping role of accreditation 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.
Columbia is not likely to lose its accreditation despite the administration's charges. Typically, these matters result in the institution agreeing to continued monitoring and an action plan, often in response to a warning or less commonly being put on probation.
Whatever action an accreditor takes regarding an institution's status, it comes as a result of a deliberate process, as acknowledged by MSCHE president Heather Perfetti.
'We are aware of the press release issued today by the United States Department of Education (USDE) regarding Columbia University and can confirm that we received a letter regarding this matter this afternoon,' Perfetti said, according to Inside Higher Education. "Consistent with our Commission's management of investigative findings, we will process these in accordance with our policies and procedures,' she added.
In fact, MSCHE began investigating Columbia's response to the department's allegations of antisemitism last month.
In an online statement, Columbia said it was "aware of the concerns raised by the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights today to our accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, and we have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States. Columbia is deeply committed to combatting antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it.'
As challenging as the situation has become for Columbia, the administration appears to be setting up an additional target with its latest announcement — the accreditation process itself.
The notice to Columbia is likely a proxy for ramping up President Trump's long-standing and frequent attacks on accreditors.
'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 as his 'secret weapon,' which critics fear he could use to force accreditors to apply criteria that are aligned with his political ideology.
In April, he 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.'
Perhaps it's no co-incidence that MSCHE president Perfetti was one of the individuals who raised pointed concerns about that order at the time.
She said that accreditors 'firmly reject President Trump's mischaracterization of accreditors' role,' and she noted legal obstacles to the administration's threats to not recognize an accreditor, writing that "the Higher Education Act, along with corresponding regulations and case law, establishes a clear system of due process for the recognition of an accreditor. Ultimately, concerns about accreditor recognition can be escalated to federal court.'
In the Education Department's notice, Secretary Linda McMahon emphasized that her department has 'an obligation to promptly provide accreditors with any noncompliance findings related to member institutions,' and that it believes 'Columbia University no longer appears to meet the Commission's accreditation standards.'
She added that accreditors 'have an obligation to ensure member institutions abide by their standards,' and said, 'we look forward to the Commission keeping the Department fully informed of actions taken to ensure Columbia's compliance with accreditation standards including compliance with federal civil rights laws.'
Finally, citing 34 C.F.R. § 602.20(a), the Education Department warned that 'accreditors are required to notify any member institution about a federal noncompliance finding and establish a plan to come into compliance. If a university fails to come into compliance within a specified period, an accreditor must take appropriate action against its member institution.'
'Accreditors are in an impossible situation as they face two choices that both lead to existential crises,' Robert Kelchen, head of the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies at the University of Tennessee, told me. 'If they comply with the administration's request, they risk losing members and the trust of the higher education community. But if they do not comply, it is likely that the federal government will attempt to strip their ability to be a gatekeeper for federal financial aid. Accreditors may win that fight in court, but it's far from a guarantee and is expensive for a membership organization to pursue.'
It's true that Columbia University once again finds itself in the hot seat, but stripping away its accreditation may not be the administration's ultimate aim. Instead, the goal may be a larger one — putting an accreditor on trial and punishing it for what the federal government believes is a failure to do its job, thereby sending a message to other agencies that they could be next.
