Federal Accreditation Rules Propose Viewpoint Surveys

The federal government has proposed new rules for the agencies that accredit colleges and universities. A community college dean, writing in a column for Inside Higher Ed, argues these proposals contain fundamental contradictions and could let outside evaluators to make decisions based on flawed perceptions.

According to the dean's reading of the proposed changes in the Federal Register, section 602.17 would require institutions to maintain consistent academic freedom protections for all faculty. However, a subsequent paragraph would require those same institutions to measure student and faculty perceptions on the range of viewpoints offered. The dean contends these rules repeatedly conflate academic freedom with perceived viewpoint diversity, calling it a "fundamental category error."

The Problem with Perception

The proposed standard hinges on student and faculty perceptions of the viewpoints offered by an institution or even an individual academic program. The dean, drawing on decades of experience fielding student complaints, states that student perceptions of faculty viewpoints are "often catastrophically wrong." Students, the column notes, often stereotype instructors based on race, age, gender, clothing, or accent. A professor presenting multiple perspectives could be misunderstood as endorsing the one a student remembers most. Under the proposed language, the dean writes, "what matters is not what the professor’s actual perspective is; what matters is what students think it is."

The rules also present a contradiction, according to the analysis. They forbid firing someone based on viewpoint or ideology while simultaneously mandating a measure of perceived ideological balance. "We’re supposed to ensure some sort of perceived ideological 'balance' as defined by local opinion polls, but we’re not supposed to take action to achieve that balance," the dean writes. This simultaneous mandate and prohibition, the column argues, means the standard becomes whatever an evaluator wants it to mean in practice.

Implications for Programs and Accreditation

The application of this standard extends beyond whole institutions to individual academic programs. The dean offers a hypothetical example: if a two-person HVAC department were perceived by students as having two conservative members, the program could be cited for a lack of viewpoint balance. This could, in turn, imperil the college's accreditation. The institution might then be forced to hire a new faculty member with different perceived leanings using funds it does not have. The dean sees this as evidence of the proposal's "bad faith."

The column questions the very premise of linking perceived political leanings to educational quality. "To give this any credibility at all, I’d need to be convinced that the perceived political leanings of a math professor affect how she teaches calculus," the author states.

A Shift Away from Peer Review

Beyond the focus on ideology, the dean argues the proposals seek to displace traditional academic peer review. The language emphasizes that self-studies would no longer be required and that accrediting agencies would not have to include or listen to educators. Instead, the proposals suggest institutions "may prefer an independent audit or a review from business leaders in the community."

In the name of efficiency, the rules would let accrediting agencies composed of people who have never worked in higher education to conduct "cost/benefit analysis" reviews. These analyses would determine if institutions have sufficient flexibility in their staffing and scholarly integrity policies. "Insufficient flexibility to fire people would be cause to deny accreditation," the dean notes, adding that in a context of ideological policing, "that could get scary." The author promises further analysis in subsequent posts.