Higher education experts outline impending threat: the weaponization of accreditation, federal student aid

The United States’ system of higher education is an unparalleled engine for economic opportunity, life-saving discovery, and vehicle for democracy. Underneath the research that leads to a better understanding of the world and teaching and learning that transmits new knowledge to ensure a capable and educated workforce and citizenry, there are several core pillars—like accreditation and agreements that allow access to federal funds—that empower the colleges and universities to thrive. These foundational elements, complex and wonky, are rarely an area of focus for society, and they are being re-engineered to become levers for ideological control of the sector.

To shine a light on this topic, the Alliance for Higher Education convened a panel of experts in March for a discussion titled, “Weaponizing Federal Student Aid to Control Higher Education," featuring Antoinette Flores from New America; Denisa Gándara from the University of Texas at Austin; Robert Kelchen from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville; and moderated by Liliana M. Garces from the Alliance. A full recording of the webinar is available here.

Collectively, these experts described the potential for an environment in which the federal government is no longer just a funder of education, but an architect of ideological control and censorship—a role that represents a direct threat to a university’s ability and freedom to create, advance, and transmit knowledge and pursue truth for the common good.

Proposed Changes to the System for Awards Management

The General Services Administration (GSA), which manages the System for Award Management (SAM)—the infrastructure all entities that receive federal funds use—has proposed new certification requirements. These shifts, which GSA does not have the authority to make, closely align with the now-unlawful anti-DEI "Dear Colleague Letter" that the Department of Education ceased defending earlier this year. Amanda Fuchs Miller, a former Department of Education senior official, outlined this attack in a recent op-ed in Insider Higher Ed. 

“SAM is highly, highly technical and wonky…” noted Flores. “The [proposed] language slipped into the certification... cites executive orders including those that have been withdrawn." Crucially, she warned that this isn't just a paperwork change, but exposes institutions to immense legal liability under the False Claims Act if they are found non-compliant with these vague ideological mandates.

Accreditation as a Lever for Title IV Funds

This spring, the Department of Education will convene an “Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization” committee to conduct “negotiated rulemaking” for federal accreditation regulations. This committee will clarify oversight roles with a focus on student outcomes and educational quality, and will update core requirements for accreditation.

Accreditation is the mechanism by which all colleges and universities are able to receive Title IV funds like Pell grants and other forms of student financial aid. Changes that allow more institutions to gain accreditation will allow bad actors to gain access to this powerful program, and removing critical elements, like the ability to disaggregate student success data based on demographics or pursue all forms of research, will throttle colleges and universities’ ability to support their entire student body and this country’s greatest engine for innovation.

By threatening to fire accreditors that don't prioritize White House-defined “viewpoint diversity,” the panel discussed, the government is attempting to turn independent bodies into "arms of the federal government.”

Navigating ambiguity and organizing a unified response

In an era of rapid administrative shifts, Robert Kelchen said that those in the higher education sector can often feel they are "drinking out of a firehose" of new memos and press releases. This creates a state of "repressive legalism"—a term coined through research by moderator Liliana M. Garces—where the uncertainty of a future rule is as effective in changing behavior as the law itself.

Denisa Gándara identified this as the most significant practical risk facing the sector beyond the acute risks associated with SAM and accreditation:

"I think one thing we shouldn't be doing... we shouldn't be proactively complying with what we think might come. We have to be really cautious about responding to policy uncertainty through preemptive self-censorship and preemptive abandoning our mission and our core values."

As Gándara observed, while administrators might seek "short-term administrative relief" by scaling back commitments today, they risk "long-term constraints on institutional independence". Equally critical, she noted, is that once these programs are abandoned, "rebuilding them later on becomes extremely difficult.” 

Building on this—and the need for a unified response to challenges to the sector—Kelchen highlighted that colleges and universities have proven successful in the past. Their response to past attempts to coercion swayed public sentiment and ultimately led to the administration backpedaling. "The Higher Ed Compact that was proposed last fall…” he said, “flopped because the administration didn't do their homework and get institutions to sign on before announcing it, and they succumbed to public pressure… When stakeholders coordinate their pushback... the administration often succumbs to public pressure.”

Gándara closed by calling out the importance of coordination. “Stay connected with the Alliance for Higher Education, she said. “That’s the organization I think of that’s really connecting the dots. DEI is not separate from student success. It’s not separate from academic freedom. It’s not separate from institutional autonomy. It’s all connected, and I think the Alliance is doing a really good job of connecting those dots for us."

‍