Summary#
The Fairness in Higher Education Accreditation Act would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965. Its goal is to change the conditions for federal recognition of college accreditors, including by protecting free inquiry and limiting what accreditors may consider about race, color, sex, and national origin. The bill was introduced in the Senate and is not law; whether it will pass is uncertain.
- To receive federal recognition, an accrediting agency would have to show success in ensuring a right of free inquiry at institutions it accredits, except for listed religious institutions.
- Agencies could not impose requirements, set standards, investigate, or make recommendations about the listed demographic makeup of students, faculty, or staff; people in leadership; or people receiving honors or special commendations.
- Agencies would have to let each accredited institution, including its components or subparts, adopt any lawful policy on those matters, regardless of the institution’s mission. They could not consider those factors in accreditation.
- An institution facing a denial, withdrawal, or termination of accreditation—or an imminent threat of one—because of a violation of the new permission requirement could bring a civil action under existing provisions of the Higher Education Act.
What it means for you#
- Accrediting agencies: To qualify as reliable authorities for federal purposes, agencies would have to meet the new conditions. The bill does not create a new accrediting body.
- Colleges and universities: Agencies could not require or assess policies about the listed demographic factors. Institutions could adopt any lawful policy on those factors, including policies that differ from one another.
- Public and private institutions: The bill defines free inquiry differently for each. For a public institution legally required to follow the First Amendment, it includes compliance with the First Amendment and the institution’s written academic-freedom policies. For a private institution, it means following its written policies on the listed freedoms and academic freedom.
- Religious institutions: Institutions meeting any of six listed descriptions would be exempt from the free-inquiry requirement. The bill does not exempt them from the separate restrictions on accreditor consideration of demographic factors.
- Students and staff: The bill does not directly change their eligibility for admission, employment, honors, or services. It limits what accreditors may require or consider about the listed demographic factors.
- Institutions facing accreditation action: The bill would allow a civil action in the specified circumstances. The parent Act was not supplied, so the existing lawsuit process and remedies could not be verified.
Money#
No publicly available information.
- The bill does not state a spending amount, create a fund, or set a fee.
- Any costs to accreditors or institutions from changing their practices are not estimated in the supplied material.
What is unclear#
- The bill does not define “success in ensuring” free inquiry, or explain how an accreditor would have to demonstrate it.
- It does not set out a review process, timeline, appeal process, or reporting rules for the new recognition conditions.
- “Any lawful policy” depends on what policies are lawful; the bill does not specify how conflicts with other laws would be handled.
- Some religious-exemption criteria use terms such as “significant amount of financial support” without defining them.
- The parent Act was not supplied, so current recognition criteria and the details of the civil-action rules in the Higher Education Act could not be checked.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the bill is that accreditation should not depend on an institution adopting a particular policy about demographic composition, leadership, or honors.
- Requiring accreditors to respect institutions’ lawful policy choices could protect institutional independence, including when institutions have different missions.
- Making free inquiry a recognition condition could give institutions and their communities a way to challenge restrictions on speech, association, religion, or academic freedom through accreditation standards.
Case against#
- One concern is that accreditors could be barred from considering demographic factors even when those factors might be relevant to evaluating an institution’s practices.
- The rule applies regardless of an institution’s mission and bars several kinds of accreditor activity, including investigations and recommendations. That could limit how accreditors assess institutions.
- The free-inquiry requirement could make federal recognition depend on an undefined standard: the bill does not explain what counts as “success” or how it would be measured.
- The religious exemption covers several different kinds of institutions, and some criteria are not defined in the bill.