Accreditation and Anti-Semitism at Columbia University
Accrediting bodies play a crucial role in deciding if universities can access federal funding and award degrees. Institutions must comply with the standards set by these organizations to maintain their standing and reputation.
Secretary Linda McMahon and the Education Department have leveraged this authority in their efforts to address anti-Semitism at Columbia University. On June 4, the department notified the university’s accreditor that it had violated federal laws by showing “deliberate indifference to Jewish students’ harassment.” Consequently, this indicated that Columbia was not meeting the required accreditation standards.
This action represents a strategic move in the administration’s ongoing efforts against discriminatory diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
President Trump’s executive order from April targets accrediting organizations that mandate DEI practices for universities, requiring them to report violations by institutions that fail to uphold appropriate standards and comply with federal regulations.
In the U.S., universities are generally accredited by regional bodies. Columbia holds accreditation from the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE). The Education Department highlighted that Columbia fell short of MSCHE’s standards, particularly regarding adherence to applicable government laws.
The department asserted that Columbia’s failure to protect Jewish students limited their access to educational opportunities, thereby violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
In recent months, the Education Department has been investigating Columbia, and in earlier actions, it cut $400 million in federal funds due to concerns over anti-Semitism. Should MSCHE decide to revoke Columbia’s accreditation, the university could risk losing its eligibility for federal student loans and Pell grants.
If the Education Department informs the accreditor of non-compliance with federal law, the accreditor is required to notify the university and help create a plan for improvement. Should the university fail to comply, the accreditor must take necessary further steps.
In recent years, some accreditors have been seen as enforcing harmful DEI practices, pressuring universities to adopt certain standards or face losing accreditation. This was the case with MSCHE, which also included DEI criteria in its standards.
Despite the controversy surrounding these accreditors, there’s a potential for them to become instruments of reform. If these organizations operate with integrity and align with Trump’s executive order, they could help eliminate discriminatory practices in higher education.
Columbia’s current situation could be a telling test of the accreditor’s collaboration with the administration. Anti-Semitism has become a largely non-partisan concern, except for some activists on the far left. If accreditors prove their reliability, this partnership could alleviate broader issues related to discrimination.
It’s important not to overlook universities beyond the Ivy League. A recent report indicated that 60 institutions nationwide are under investigation for enabling anti-Semitism. Targets for potential action include the University of California system, Rutgers University, and Portland State University, all of which have faced anti-Semitic protests amid rising DEI initiatives.
The Trump administration seems determined to reassess higher education from multiple angles, striving to restore the prestige of the American education system. Given how entrenched DEI is right now, it’s worth exploring every possible solution.
While accreditors may not always prioritize the best interests of students and faculty, they represent a significant opportunity for the administration to dismantle DEI practices.
