Academic Freedom Under Pressure: How New Accreditation Standards Threaten Open Inquiry

A case study in how an accreditation body enfeebles academic freedom.

The incoming Trump administration has indicated that changes to the system that accredits universities and colleges may be part of its larger efforts to reform higher education in the U.S. But why and how does the accreditation system for colleges and universities matter? And how does this system affect the capacity of colleges and universities to maintain an environment conducive to open inquiry and academic freedom?

Fully answering such questions involves many complexities, but a brief case study of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC) accreditation materials can shed some light on them. In particular, examining how the WSCUC’s 2023 Handbook of Accreditation has changed from its predecessor Handbook reveals how accrediting agencies can pose a threat to open inquiry by weakening guardrails and incentives that colleges and universities have to protect academic freedom and imposing requirements that may incentivize colleges and universities to adhere to contested political agendas.

The WSCUC accredits universities and colleges in California, Hawaii, and U.S. Pacific territories (including the UC and CSU systems and elite private institutions in California). It functions as a key gatekeeper to federal funding for student financial aid and academic legitimacy. Without accreditation, a college or university cannot participate in federal student aid programs, which provide tens of billions in funding under Title IV of the Higher Education Act. Furthermore, without accreditation, course credits and degrees will not be recognized by other schools.

Universities and colleges therefore invest considerable resources to ensure that they achieve and keep their accreditation. This process often involves collecting copious amounts of institutional data, writing hundreds—if not thousands—of pages of documentation, and engaging the accrediting agency in substantive discussions about institutional policy and culture. In some cases, it may involve responding to letters of inquiry from the accrediting agency when the agency hears of potential problems.

In 2023, the WSCUC revised its Handbook of Accreditation, which had last been substantively revised a decade earlier in 2013. The 2023 Handbook of Accreditation took effect for all accreditation and reaffirmations of accreditation beginning after June 30, 2024. It consists of two different types of elements, four high-level Standards and 41 lower-level Criteria for Review (CFR), against which universities and colleges are evaluated for accreditation.

Compared to the 2013 Handbook, the 2023 Handbook revises several elements of accreditation in ways that leave open inquiry and academic freedom in a more precarious state.

For example, the 2023 Handbook removes a strong and clear understanding of academic freedom in favor of something weaker and more vague.

Let’s first examine what the the 2013 Handbook’s CFR 1.3 on academic freedom states:

The institution publicly states its commitment to academic freedom for faculty, staff, and students, and acts accordingly. This commitment affirms that those in the academy are free to share their convictions and responsible conclusions with their colleagues and students in their teaching and writing.

Guidelines: The institution has published or has readily available policies on academic freedom. For those institutions that strive to instill specific beliefs and world views, policies clearly state how these views are implemented and ensure that these conditions are consistent with generally recognized principles of academic freedom. Due-process procedures are disseminated, demonstrating that faculty and students are protected in their quest for truth.

There are two things of note about this 2013 approach to academic freedom. First, it specified an important aspect of a commitment to academic freedom, indicating explicitly that academic freedom enables people in the academy to share their beliefs and conclusions with others in teaching and writing. Second, it required universities’ academic freedom policies to be public and to contain due-process procedures.

In contrast, the 2023 Handbook’s CFR 1.6, the only part of the Handbook that discusses academic freedom now simply reads:

The institution maintains, publishes, and adheres to policies on academic freedom.

Gone are the important specifications that academic freedom involves the freedom to share one’s beliefs and conclusions with others and the requirement that academic freedom policies be public and involve due-process procedures.

The overall effect of these changes from 2013 to 2023 is to weaken and make more vague the WSCUC’s expectations of colleges and universities to defend the academic freedom rights of their faculty and students. An important safeguard and incentive for colleges and universities to maintain strong and clear policies to protect academic freedom has been enfeebled.

A further threat to open inquiry and academic freedom arises from the 2023 Handbook’s elevation of various provisions that require colleges and universities to make explicit a "commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI) as an essential component of their mission.

The 2023 Handbook’s statement of Standard 1, requires that an IHE "promotes the success of all students and makes explicit its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion." Standards 2, 3, and 4 also presuppose that IHEs are required to have, as part of their mission, a commitment to DEI.

In comparison, the 2013 Handbook's Standard 1 requires no such commitment at the level of an institution’s mission to DEI. The main place DEI was mentioned in the 2013 Handbook is CFR 1.4, which required that an institution "demonstrates appropriate attention to the [sic] increasing diversity, equity, and inclusion through its policies, its educational and curricular programs, its hiring and admissions criteria, and its administrative and organizational practices."

The 2023 Handbook also requires that, in Institutional Reports submitted for re-accreditation, an institution will be "challenged to analyze itself as an institution of higher education in the context of each Standard", where "[t]he commitment to success for all students and the institution's understanding of diversity, equity, and inclusion is a theme that is repeated in each of the four Standards."

All by itself, this change need not present a threat to open inquiry in higher education. There may be no essential conflict between a commitment to DEI and open inquiry, as some scholars have argued.

But conflict between a commitment to DEI and open inquiry does arise when the former becomes a requirement for colleges, universities, and their faculty and leadership to adhere to a particular political agenda or pass a political litmus test.

There is ample evidence that, in practice, requiring individuals and institutions to commit to DEI does just this. For example, some scholars have criticized the use of mandatory diversity statements in faculty hiring as amounting to political litmus test. There is empirical evidence that faculty evaluating these statements systematically penalize candidates who write about viewpoint diversity or socioeconomic diversity rather than race and gender. And some scholars may even have lost job opportunities for criticizing mandatory diversity statements.

More subtly, university leaders may take their commitment to DEI as justification to interfere with research, teaching, and campus programming that might be perceived as inconsistent with DEI principles, putting open inquiry and academic freedom at risk.

The WSCUC's new requirements effectively create a system of compelled speech at both the institutional and individual levels. Under the new standards, institutions must not only maintain a commitment to DEI but make such a commitment a part of their core mission. This requirement goes beyond merely ensuring fair treatment or equal opportunity; it mandates specific ideological commitments that many scholars argue are themselves matters of legitimate academic debate.

When combined with the weakened protections for academic freedom, this creates a troubling dynamic where institutions are required to promote certain political or ideological positions while simultaneously having less robust safeguards for faculty who might wish to critically examine or challenge these positions.

As the incoming Trump administration considers reforms to the accreditation system, this case study points to a broader principle: accreditation should serve to strengthen, not weaken, the university's role as a space for open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas.

Whether changes to accreditation requirements come from the political left or right, they should be evaluated based on how well they preserve this essential function of higher education. Using accreditation as a tool to advance partisan agendas—regardless of their political orientation—undermines the fundamental mission of colleges and universities as institutions dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge and truth.

Image from Shutterstock