Tag: Standards

  • VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    SAN FRANCISCO, March 10, 2025 — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Lars Jensen, a math professor unconstitutionally punished for criticizing what he believed was his college’s decision to water down its math standards.

    Reversing a federal district court, the Ninth Circuit held Jensen suffered wrongful dismissal of his claims against Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada, and that he should have his day in court to prove college administrators violated his First Amendment rights. The court also held Jensen’s right to speak out about the math standards was so clearly established that the administrators were not entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.

    “This decision is a major victory for the free speech rights of academics,” said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney Daniel Ortner, who argued the case before a Ninth Circuit panel in November 2024. “This decision will protect professors from investigation or threats of termination for their speech, and promote accountability for administrators who violate the First Amendment.”

    The dispute began in 2020, when Jensen planned to comment at a TMCC conference about what he perceived to be diminishing academic standards at the college. After administrators prohibited Jensen from sharing his views at a Q&A session, he printed out his planned comments critiquing the college for allowing for “a student graduating from college” while only being “ready for middle school math,” and handed them out to his colleagues during the break. TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworth told Jensen not to circulate his fliers during the break, but he continued to do so without interrupting the session.

    Ellsworth then accused Jensen of “disobeying” her and warned him he had “made an error” defying her. Following through on her veiled threats, Ellsworth sent Jensen an official reprimand. Over the next two performance reviews, Jensen’s department chair suggested he receive an “excellent” rating, but Ellsworth retaliated by giving him “unsatisfactory” ratings for “insubordination.” As a result, Jensen automatically had to undergo review for possible termination.

    “The college’s actions tarnished my reputation and chilled my speech,” said Jensen. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision vindicates my First Amendment rights and allows me to have my day in court.” 

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF PROFESSOR JENSEN AND HIS ATTORNEYS

    TMCC might have fired Jensen if not for the speedy intervention of FIRE, which wrote a letter objecting that the administrators were violating the First Amendment, which protects faculty at public colleges in commenting as citizens on matters of public concern. TMCC announced that Jensen would not be fired, but the damage to his First Amendment rights was already done, especially with the negative performance evaluations remaining on his file.

    Jensen sued Ellsworth and other TMCC administrators in 2022, arguing the college’s retaliatory actions violated his First Amendment rights as well as his right to due process and equal protection. A district court dismissed the case in 2023. 

    The Ninth Circuit ruled today that the district court erred in dismissing Jensen’s First Amendment claim, because his speech about the college’s academic standards involved a matter of public concern related to scholarship or teaching, and thus receives First Amendment protection. 

    The Court also held the university’s retaliatory actions were likely to chill Jensen’s speech, and that a university’s “interest in punishing a disobedient employee for speaking in violation of their supervisor’s orders cannot automatically trump the employee’s interest in speaking.” The Court warned, in fact, that if an employer could fire an employee solely for refusing to obey an order to stop speaking, a university could unconstitutionally enjoy “carte blanche to stifle legitimate speech.”

    The Court further held the district court erred when it held that claims against the college administrators were barred by qualified immunity, a doctrine that requires plaintiffs to show a government official violated their “clearly established right” before they can hold those officials accountable for damages. The Ninth Circuit held that at the time Jensen spoke out, “it was clearly established that a professor has a right to speak about a school’s curriculum without being reprimanded, given negative performance reviews, and put through an investigation and termination hearing.”

    The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensen’s First Amendment claims can proceed. He may also choose to amend his other claims as necessary to proceed alongside them. Jensen is also represented by Nevada attorney John Nolan, who brought the lawsuit and wrote the briefs filed with the Ninth Circuit. 

     

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Source link

  • Accreditors offer flexibility on DEI standards

    Accreditors offer flexibility on DEI standards

    President Donald Trump’s broadside against diversity, equity and inclusion has left colleges scrambling to determine how to comply—even as they juggle accreditation standards containing elements of DEI.

    But even with an executive order from the Trump administration targeting “illegal” DEI programs at colleges blocked by the courts, and a Dear Colleague letter from the Education Department likely unenforceable, accreditors are treading lightly on DEI, allowing colleges leeway on complying to certain standards. If the accreditors didn’t provide such flexibility, colleges would essentially have to decide between complying with the federal government or with their accreditor—a nearly impossible situation for institutions.

    Some, like the STEM accreditor ABET, have dropped DEI standards entirely. And the American Bar Association suspended enforcement of its DEI standards through August while it weighs revisions to such requirements.

    As colleges feel the squeeze, some of the largest institutional accreditors have decided not to force colleges to choose between them or the Education Department, at least for now, largely telling institutions they will not be adversely affected if they fail to comply with DEI standards due to state or federal laws.

    Accreditors Push Back

    While accreditors allow colleges to operate with flexibility on DEI standards, some are also pushing back on the Trump administration’s crackdown, particularly the Dear Colleague letter that seeks to expand a Supreme Court opinion in the Students for Fair Admissions case, which shot down affirmative action, to ban race-conscious scholarships, programming and more.

    “We would suggest that the [U.S. Department of Education’s] interpretation of SFFA is overly broad and expansive, a concern shared among legal experts,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions wrote in a letter to the Trump administration Monday.

    C-RAC officials added that the 14-day deadline for colleges to drop all race-conscious activities is “unreasonable” and that “the expectations for institutional actions or the methods through which institutions are expected to comply with these broad reaching requirements are unclear.”

    Numerous accreditors also signed on to a letter to the department from the American Council on Education, which raised similar concerns. That letter also noted that, “however one defines DEI—and DEI is a concept that means different things to different parties—it is worth noting that the range of activities that are commonly associated with DEI are not, in and of themselves, illegal.”

    Offering Flexibility

    As accreditors press the Department of Education for clarity, they have also provided guidance to colleges, emphasizing that their member institutions must follow state and federal laws.

    “What we have said is that they can be assured we would not take any adverse action with regard to any of our standards if the institution is attempting to follow what they believe is a legal requirement,” Larry Schall, president of the New England Commission of Higher Education, told Inside Higher Ed.

    Nicole Biever, chief of staff at the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, wrote by email that the organization has notified institutions “that the Commission would never expect any institution to violate the laws or government mandates of the jurisdictions in which they operate.”

    She added that MSCHE standards “will in no way inhibit” institutional compliance with the law.

    Barbara Gellman-Danley, president of the Higher Learning Commission, emphasized in an email to Inside Higher Ed that institutions must comply with all members of the regulatory triad, comprised of accreditors, state governments and the federal Department of Education. If “HLC’s requirements overlap with requirements from other members of the Triad, we work with the other Triad members to identify these situations and limit the burden on the institution,” she wrote.

    “HLC does not prescribe how a member institution meets HLC’s requirements,” she added. “If a requirement of another entity of the Triad may appear to limit an institution’s ability to meet HLC’s requirements in a particular manner, an institution has the flexibility within HLC’s requirements to identify other ways to demonstrate it meets HLC’s requirements.”

    In guidance sent to member institutions, Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission interim president Christopher Oberg noted that the Dear Colleague letter does not have the force of the law and encouraged institutions “to consult their own legal counsel to help navigate the Department’s guidance.” Oberg added that the organization “will continue to provide updates to member institutions as matters are clarified.”

    The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges has also emphasized flexibility in its guidance to members.

    “It is important to note that as a federally recognized institutional accreditor, ACCJC would never require a member institution to violate state or federal laws and regulations or consumer protection clauses. As an agency, we are beholden to the federal government, state governments, and our member institutions, and work collaboratively and flexibly with those oversight partners to meet any and all regulations and communicate requirements to member institutions, as necessary,” AACJC president Mac Powell wrote by email.

    What Are the DEI Standards?

    Policies on DEI are as varied as the accreditors themselves, with different requirements or none at all.

    For instance, NECHE’s accreditation criteria urge member institutions to address their “own goals for the achievement of diversity, equity, and inclusion” across the student body, faculty and staff.

    But MSCHE’s accreditation criteria require institutions to “reflect deeply and share results on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the context of their mission” across areas such as goals and actions, demographics, policies, processes, assessments, and resource allocation.

    “One goal of DEI reflection would be to address disparate impacts on an increasingly diverse student population if discovered,” part of MSCHE’s standards reads. Elsewhere, MSCHE indicates that candidates for accreditation should have “sufficient diversity, independence, and expertise to ensure the integrity of the institution.”

    Other accreditors, such as HLC, say that an accredited college should strive “to ensure that the overall composition of its faculty and staff reflects human diversity as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it serves.”

    Others, such as programmatic accreditors, may have more exacting standards. But some accreditors, like the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, have never included DEI criteria.

    Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities interim president Jeff Fox told Inside Higher Ed by email that it too has never officially had DEI standards as part of its accreditation requirements.

    “The NWCCU has no language in the standards pertaining to DEI, and it recognizes institutions are addressing the requirements of various state and federal laws in this arena. The NWCCU supports institutions in their efforts to address the DCL as appropriate for their circumstances,” Fox wrote.

    ‘Very Little Danger’

    Some critics, particularly on the conservative side, take a dim view of accreditors’ DEI standards. Andrew Gillen, a research fellow at the conservative Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, wrote in a recent paper that “accreditors too often abuse their power as gatekeepers” to federal financial aid, including in areas such as pushing DEI standards.

    On paper, such standards look fine, he wrote to Inside Higher Ed by email. But he questions how such standards get enforced, arguing that “the problem is the interpretation of those standards. Accreditors can and do use vague standards to force radical changes on campus.”

    Gillen pointed to a past conflict in 2000 when—he argued—the ABA “used innocuous and vague diversity requirements to force George Mason University Law School to discriminate in favor of Black applicants by simply rejecting anything the university did short of discriminating.”

    But Gillen believes colleges face little risk if they fail to comply with accreditors’ DEI standards.

    “Colleges are in very little danger so long as they follow federal civil rights laws, which have largely reverted to their original intention of promoting colorblindness,” he wrote. “Any state or accreditor that requires violating these laws will find itself in a world of legal trouble. Accreditors that ignore civil rights laws would lose their recognition from the Department of Education, and colleges that followed such requirements would also lose access to federal aid programs.”

    Robert Shireman, a senior fellow at the progressive Century Foundation and a member of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, which advises the education secretary on accreditation, downplays the notion that accreditors’ DEI standards are burdensome.

    Typically, he told Inside Higher Ed, accreditors’ DEI requirements are minimal. Such standards tend to focus on inclusivity, but he notes that accreditors are “not enforcing any kind of quota.”

    At a recent NACIQI meeting, he said when asked about changing DEI standards, accreditors indicated they didn’t plan to do so because “they feel that there’s nothing inappropriate about the approaches that they are taking, and they are holding firm.” He added that accreditors recognize “schools have to comply with laws, whether those laws are federal laws or state laws.”

    There’s also an outstanding question on how the Trump administration is defining DEI.

    “‘DEI’ has become this undefined term that gets interpreted in certain kinds of ways,” Shireman said. “And most accreditors are quite flexible in their approach to diversity, equity and inclusion.”

    In a time of uncertainty, Shireman believes many institutions want to see accreditors hold firm on DEI while they push ED for guidance on terminating race-conscious activities and programming.

    Shireman points to “surprise and outrage” over what he calls “an absurd perversion of civil rights laws that is happening in this administration. To read civil rights laws as prohibiting a caring approach to providing opportunity is Orwellian and it’s not appropriate. I don’t think schools support the idea of accreditors caving in to a backwards interpretation of civil rights laws.”

    Source link

  • ABA suspends DEI standards for accreditation

    ABA suspends DEI standards for accreditation

    The American Bar Association is suspending diversity, equity, and inclusion standards for the law schools it accredits amid President Donald Trump’s crackdown on DEI efforts, Reuters reported.

    An ABA council reportedly voted on the change Friday, suspending DEI standards through August as the organization—which accredits nearly 200 law schools—considers permanent changes.

    ABA officials did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    The change comes as the ABA has clashed with the Trump administration in recent weeks, accusing the president of “wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself” in issuing rapid-fire executive orders that have targeted DEI and birthright citizenship, and sought to shrink the federal government through mass firings and other actions that some legal scholars have deemed unlawful.

    In the aftermath, the Trump administration barred political appointees to the Federal Trade Commission from holding ABA leadership posts, participating in ABA events, or renewing their memberships. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson accused the ABA of a “long history of leftist advocacy” and said “recent attacks” on the administration made the relationship “untenable.” 

    State officials have also pressured ABA to drop its DEI standards. In January a group of 21 attorneys general, all from red states, sent a letter to the ABA urging it to drop DEI standards.

    The ABA has reportedly been reviewing its standards on DEI since 2023, when the U.S. Supreme Court upended affirmative action with its ruling in favor of Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Some Republican officials have celebrated the ABA’s move. “This is a victory for common sense! We are bringing meritocracy back to the legal system,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X.

    ABA’s suspension of DEI standards comes after the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology dropped diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility from its accreditation criteria.

    Source link

  • STEM accreditor drops DEIA from its standards

    STEM accreditor drops DEIA from its standards

    The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology has dropped diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility from its accreditation criteria and supporting documents, a move made in response to federal pushback on DEIA, according to an email obtained by Inside Higher Ed.

    “Recognizing the heightened scrutiny of higher education and accreditation—including recent directives and legislation in the United States—the ABET Board of Directors recently approved the removal of all references to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) from our accreditation criteria and supporting documents,” officials wrote in the email.

    ABET did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    The move comes as President Donald Trump has turned campaign trail rhetoric against DEI into policy, issuing an executive order early in his term that took aim at what the administration called “illegal” DEI initiatives without specifying what would violate federal civil rights laws.

    “These changes were made in response to the significant challenges many institutions, academic programs, and industry partners face in implementing and sustaining DEIA initiatives,” ABET officials wrote in the email announcing changes to their accreditation criteria.

    The accrediting body also appeared to delete the DEIA page on its website that was active until at least last week, according to an archived copy that is accessible via the Wayback Machine.

    ABET currently accredits programs at 930 colleges, according to its website.

    Source link

  • Meeting Accreditation Standards for Higher Education with Technology

    Meeting Accreditation Standards for Higher Education with Technology

    Tune In To Our Audio Blog

     

    Overview – Reimagining Accreditation

    Let’s get into the actual difficulties surrounding accreditation. You Directors of Accreditation are well-versed in the process and are very much aware that accreditation is not a game. It’s not enough to merely do the necessary compliance tasks, is it? Meeting accreditation criteria, establishing your institution’s value, enduring the never-ending audits, and keeping up with changing regulations are all part of it. The stakes are high and the pressure is intense. It remains constant. Traditional methods? They won’t cut it anymore.

    Imagine, though, if the tables could be turned. Envision yourself to use technology to not just complete the certification process, but to turn it into an asset. Think of real-time data, seamless procedures, and openness at every level. It’s time to go beyond the minimum and leverage approval to your benefit. Automating, cloud computing, and utilizing artificial intelligence-powered analytics will not only enhance the reputation of your university but also enhance the efficiency of operations.

    To help Directors of Accreditation use technology to improve institutional standards, ease compliance, and streamline accreditation data administration, we have put together this handbook. This will empower you to make critical decisions.

     

    A Dynamic Challenge for Directors: Redefining Accreditation

    As Directors of Accreditation, you are aware of the rapidity with which accreditation standards can evolve. Meeting accreditation standards necessitates a more comprehensive examination of student outcomes, diversity metrics, and the degree to which the institution aligns with its own objectives. No longer is it sufficient to simply mark off boxes.

    One of the hardest things to do? The stress that comes from having up-to-date, correct information at your hands. For accreditation reviews to be valid, the proof must be complete and up-to-date, leaving no room for doubt. Still, getting this information can feel like a race against the clock, especially when old methods can’t keep up with how needs change. Here, technology can really make a difference if it is used in the right way.

     

    Tech-Driven Solutions: Streamlining the Accreditation Journey

    Technology is the game-changer. Think about using AI-powered data analytics to revolutionize your accreditation data management. These smart tools can turn those stacks of paperwork into clear, insightful reports, making the process of proving your credentials not just easier, but a whole lot smarter! No more searching through spreadsheets or endless emails—just clear, usable information that shows your school is following the rules.

     

     

    Furthermore, cloud-based accreditation systems are very useful. Consider them as a safe, central location for all of your compliance-related info. It’s possible to get important data from these options, so your team can work together easily whether they’re at the office or traveling. Adopting these technologies doesn’t just keep you current; it sets a new standard for how quickly and clearly the approval process can be done.

     

    Automation: The Secret to Simplifying Repetitive Accreditation Tasks

    Imagine having more time to work on big-picture projects instead of doing the same old things over and over again. That’s how powerful technology can be in the process of getting accreditation. With the right tools, you can cut down on your work and free up your team to focus on raising institutional standards instead of just checking off tasks.

     

    Accreditation Data Management and Reporting Automation

    Consider the time used in gathering information and writing up reports for accreditation. Reducing the time and effort required to compile metrics in real-time is possible with automation technologies. As a bonus, you’ll spend less time worrying about mistakes and more time presenting accurate, up-to-date information.

     

    Smart Templates and Dashboards

    Meeting certain accreditation body criteria calls for customization, which is absolutely important. Smart templates let you quickly construct evaluations, audits, and self-studies that exactly fit what is required. Imagine having customized dashboards right at hand that clearly show your measurements and progress—no more poring over spreadsheets!

     

    Additional Benefits of Accreditation Data Management Automation

     

    • Maintain accurate, consistent, and up-to-date documentation without the need for manual updates.
    • Maintaining Accountability: A transparent audit trail for all your accrediting operations may be easily created by keeping track of who made changes and revisions.
    • Faster Decision-Making: With real-time insights and easy access to data, your team can make informed decisions quickly, keeping the accreditation process moving forward.
    • Focus on Continuous Improvement: By automating routine tasks, you can spend more time analyzing data and implementing improvements that enhance your institution’s performance and outcomes.

     

    Building Transparency and Trust Through Technology

    Let’s discuss something absolutely important for modern society: openness. Directors of Accreditation have a special opportunity to use technology to establish confidence among all those engaged in the accreditation process. How can you make this happen?

    Real-time dashboards available for stakeholders

    Imagine having real-time dashboards at your fingertips. These tools let you instantly share your accreditation progress with stakeholders—no more waiting for quarterly updates! With just a glance, everyone can see where you stand, thanks to clear visuals of your metrics, timelines, and benchmarks.

    This degree of openness helps everyone to be responsible as well as promotes teamwork. Trust naturally comes when your stakeholders know you are always trying to meet and surpass accreditation criteria.

    Blockchain for Academic Integrity

    Let’s now explore something somewhat more novel—blockchain technology. Consider blockchain as your new best buddy helping to maintain the integrity of your certification records. Using this technique makes an unchangeable record of all information connected to accreditation. Your accreditation data management is thus not only safe but also transparent and easily verifiable. Imagine being able to assure other stakeholders and accrediting authorities of your absolutely perfect data. Blockchain helps you to reduce the possibility of conflicts over data accuracy and inspires confidence among all the players. This kind of confidence helps to protect the reputation and integrity of your university.

    Enhanced Reporting Capabilities

    Now, let’s be honest: reporting can get draggy unless you trigger the right gear! Imagine being able to quickly and accurately create detailed reports that show your commitment to regulatory compliance and continuous growth. You can easily show accreditation groups how much progress you’re making like you have a superpower. By doing more than just checking off boxes, you’ll be showing that your institution is ready to take on any tasks that come its way. Therefore, why not use that report writing duty as a chance to shine? Using technology can help you stay prepared and make a great impression!

    Joining the Community

    In addition to internal partners, transparency also applies to the public and the rest of the academic community. Sharing your accreditation path will help your university project more professionalism and draw professors and students. Who would not want to be a part of an open and reliable institution?

    Using technology to track your certification procedures and results helps you to identify possible problems before they become serious ones. This proactive strategy lets you act early to maintain everything in line.

     

    Enhancing the Student Experience While Meeting Standards

    Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and Competency Tracking

    Using technology to track your certification procedures and results helps you to identify possible problems before they become serious ones. Being proactive keeps you on target. Improving the Student Experience While Complying with Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and Competency Monitoring.

    Here’s the stars: your pupils! The right technology will improve their experience and satisfy all needs. This is where Outcome-Based Education (OBE) really shines. Imagine a system that not only makes sure that educational results are in line with accreditation standards but also makes sure that student success is the most important thing. You definitely need to keep track of students’ skills and make sure they get the help they need to do well by using technology.

    Feedback Mechanisms & Surveys

    That’s not all, though! Real-time feedback tools and polls are your secret weapons for improving quality. These resources allow you to ask students for honest opinions, which might reveal where you’re succeeding and where you might need some improvement. Engaging with your students and listening to what they have to say goes beyond simply completing goals for continuous improvement.

    In this way, you make a place where students feel appreciated and supported, and you also show accreditation bodies that you’re dedicated to continuous improvement.

     

    Preparing for the Future: Tech Trends Directors Should Watch

     

     

    EdTech Innovations

    As the Director of Accreditation, it’s important to stay on top of things. Take a look at what next year holds! First, EdTech innovations are coming soon and will supposedly make the process of getting accredited even easier. Consider banking on cutting-edge software that makes data analysis better, streamlines reports, and automates tasks!

     

    Being Prepared to Virtual Accreditation Visits

    Next, we’ll go over the basics of preparing for accreditation visits that take place virtually. As more and more things happen online, reviews and audits done from afar are becoming routine. In what ways can you become ready for this change? By acquiring robust technology that facilitates online participation and emphasizes your organization’s achievements. Ensure that all team members are informed about the use of virtual presentation techniques, online document sharing, and video conferencing. Not only will these novel concepts facilitate the acquisition of accreditations, but they will also facilitate collaboration among partners.

     

    Turn Compliance into a Strategic Advantage with Creatrix Campus Accreditation Platform

    By incorporating the appropriate technology, such as the Creatrix Campus Accreditation platform, Directors of Accreditation can elevate compliance from a mundane obligation to a strategic advantage. This strategy will help you satisfy accreditation criteria and match the main objectives of your institution.

    This is the time to simplify your certification application. Explore the Creatrix Campus platform for a smarter, more efficient way to meet standards. Let’s team to surpass simple compliance!

    Source link