Newly proposed college accreditation standards could affect federal borrowing and oversight on higher education.
The Department of Education proposed new changes to accreditation on Aug. 20 in a document titled “Accreditation, Innovation and Modernization.” Proposed modifications include prioritizing “intellectual diversity” among faculty, lowering the requirements for initial recognition as an accreditor and allowing universities to work with multiple accreditation agencies. Critics are worried that these new policies will politicize the accreditation system.
Accreditation is a review process that holds higher education institutions to quality standards, measured through data points like economic return and program retention rates. Accreditors are non-government, non-profit organizations that regularly check to ensure that accredited universities are maintaining sufficient educational quality.
This shift aligns with President Donald Trump’s 2025 executive order to overhaul higher education standards, eliminate DEI initiatives and assess tax spending.
The proposed changes are in the public comment stage until Sept. 21. If a final ruling is issued by Nov. 1, changes are expected to go into effect by July 1, 2027.
Heather McCambly, an assistant professor in educational foundations, organizations and policy, believes these new changes could have a significant impact on federal student loans and federal grants by lowering the standard for universities to become accredited.
“We care about accreditation for many reasons,” McCambly said. “It’s what tells us that a school is not a scam, and it tells us what quality education should look like. Policy wise, it’s extra important because it determines what schools students can use federal aid at.”
Mostly, McCambly said she is concerned about how institutions can maintain independence while “folding” to suggestions by the federal government such as “intellectual diversity” standards. Scholars debate the varied definitions and implications of the phrase “intellectual diversity,” though it is commonly associated with political affiliation by critics.
“The things that are most threatening to the independence of higher education, and therefore the independence of learning in the U.S., is new regulations around academic freedom, and the idea of intellectual diversity,” McCambly said.
McCambly said while some aspects of the document are considered less controversial, such as its emphasis on measured standards like program retention, employment outcomes and economic returns, she believes that changes like the prioritization of intellectual diversity are intended as more direct political intervention.
“One of the most nefarious aspects of this proposed shift in accreditation policy is the federal government making direct inroads to control expression on campus in very direct ways,” McCambly said.
McCambly believes that this initiative would increase the presence of viewpoints that are “not based in scientific fact,” such as anti-vaccine rhetoric, on university and college campuses.
“It is a direct attempt to punish ideological differences between faculty, students and the [college] administration,” McCambly said. “We are seeing these ‘viewpoint diversity’ initiatives that are coming up across the country that are driven by the far right, emphasizing far right viewpoints, even when they are not based in fact.”
McCambly is also concerned that new rules allow institutions to “shop around” for accreditors that fit lowered standards, a practice that was previously restricted.
“Under current and historic policy, you have to show a good reason why you would change accreditors because you don’t want them saying ‘I’m going to find an easier accreditor who’s just going to say ‘I’m good’’ even when something is fundamentally wrong,” McCambly said.
McCambly said this change could create a “race to the bottom” in which institutions start to adhere to lower standards, and accrediting agencies are financially incentivised to drop standards in order to keep clients.
University spokesperson Meredith Herndon said that it is too early to speculate exactly how this may affect Pitt students, but the Office of Government Relations and Advocacy monitors federal developments.
“We track regulatory and policy changes closely and engage with our peer universities, higher education associations and federal partners on emerging topics and issues important to the University and our students, faculty and staff,” Herndon said.
McCambly said these proposed changes are in line with larger political attacks on higher education and democratic systems.
“Democracy is about full engagement and participation of the people in society,” McCambly said. “Higher education is part of society. So the fact that higher education has shown more interest in equitable access and success in higher education, is aligned to democratic principles, which is not what this administration is interested in.”
McCambly urges students and faculty to stay informed about changes to higher education.
“Lots of students, faculty — we don’t think about accreditation much, but this is a moment to pay attention,” McCambly said. “People don’t think of it as a civil rights issue, but this is going to become a civil rights issue.”