Congress may soon revisit the federal law governing post-secondary education, the Higher Education Act of 1965. Representative Burgess Owens (R-Utah) urges action to expose and correct the murky mischief of the accreditation system. Originally designed to ensure institutional quality before schools could access federal funds like Title IV student loans, the system now demands left-wing political conformity, sidelining academic rigor.

Owens’ bill, Accreditation for College Excellence (“ACE”), aims to bar accrediting agencies from imposing politics on institutions as part of accreditation. Such “loyalty oaths” are increasingly required by schools themselves, including pledges by faculty and students to embrace diversity ideology—“Diversity, Equity and Inclusion” (DEI). Critics argue DEI pits Americans against each other based on race, often discriminating against those of European descent and Christian heritage. Some institutions use simplistic imagery to signal favoritism toward non-white groups.

The ACE bill would curb accreditors’ influence over DEI mandates, shedding light on the opaque accreditation process. However, deeper systemic issues persist beyond the “diversity” trend. The root problem lies in the ideological alignment of accrediting agencies and educational institutions, which critics claim are led by anti-American and anti-Western Civilization ideologues prioritizing their agendas over quality education. This has left students politicized and taxpayers burdened, while diversity bureaucrats profit.

A 2021 example from Virginia’s James Madison University involved an orientation video dividing the nation into “oppressors” and “oppressed.” Similar divisive narratives are promoted through movements like Critical Race Theory (CRT), which teaches that America is inherently racist despite its role as a destination for refugees and immigrants. Critics argue CRT fosters racial tension to sustain a “race industrial complex,” benefiting figures like Ibram X. Kendi.

The Council on Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA) now requires institutions to commit to DEI, claiming it advances accreditation standards. However, the rise of DEI coincides with declining academic achievement, as ideology displaces instruction. In graduate education, the American Bar Association’s monopoly over law school accreditation forces schools to adopt leftist priorities, including diversity statements for faculty and mandatory “diversity” classes for lawyers.

The ABA has faced legal scrutiny for antitrust violations, accused of inflating salaries and hindering new law schools while producing underprepared graduates. Critics argue the system prioritizes political conformity over practical education. Schools and accreditors, they claim, collude to advance a woke agenda, falsely portraying themselves as victims of external pressures.

Restoring political balance in higher education and accrediting agencies is proposed as a solution. State Boards of Regents and other bodies often enforce partisan limits, suggesting similar measures could apply to educational institutions. Congress is urged to act, with hope that Owens will address these broader issues.

The federal government’s role in subsidizing higher education is also questioned, with calls to eliminate student loans, research grants, and Pell Grants. Critics argue the Constitution does not authorize federal involvement in education, advocating for the abolition of accreditation agencies altogether.