Excitement is brewing as the American Bar Association (ABA) and the American Psychological Association (APA) prepare for a review by the Department of Education’s National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). This review could potentially challenge the dominance these two organizations hold over their respective fields.
In the realm of law, the ABA holds a monopoly on legal education accreditation and influences lawyers’ ability to practice through state licensing. Similarly, aspiring psychologists typically need to complete an APA-accredited program to work in most states. Essentially, these accrediting bodies control access to federal funding and state licensure for professionals in their fields.
At first glance, the idea of allowing experts to set the standards in such specialized professions seems sensible. After all, these associations represent a significant pool of knowledge and experience. However, if the ABA and APA restricted their efforts to evaluating competence by established standards, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. Unfortunately, some politically motivated members of these groups have taken it upon themselves to reshape educational institutions to reflect their own radical viewpoints.
In the legal field, for example, the ABA compels schools to adopt controversial social justice initiatives and racially biased Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices. They’ve practically created a whole industry around these topics, organizing conferences and distributing materials that lean toward a particular ideology. Through their accreditation rules, the ABA directs law schools to instill these ideologies in future lawyers.
In psychology, similar themes emerge, pushing ideas related to concepts like white supremacy and privilege. The APA, like the American Medical Association, also backs what some consider discredited theories on gender, resulting in troubling practices, including extreme medical interventions for children and labeling traditional masculinity as harmful. Their agenda, which promotes a divisive anti-racist stance, draws significant concern.
This has led to a generation of lawyers and medical professionals who seem to have embraced these unconventional progressive theories, often viewing the law as merely a tool for perpetuating racism. Likewise, many in the psychological field believe that parents are somehow “oppressing” children by encouraging them to embrace traditional identities.
However, despite these organizations pushing their extreme ideologies, neither the ABA nor the APA accurately reflect the broader views of practitioners in their fields. To illustrate, the ABA’s membership has dramatically declined from about half of U.S. lawyers in 1978 to just over 10 percent of active lawyers today. The APA’s membership also accounts for significantly less than half of practicing psychologists.
While there’s no denying these private organizations have the legal right to exist, their influence doesn’t capture the sentiments of all professionals. The core issue lies in their manipulation of accreditation and licensing processes, areas that should remain politically neutral and uphold legal standards, which undermines public trust.
This isn’t merely a case of negligence; it appears intentional. In my time observing public policy accreditation, I noticed that these associations crafted and implemented DEI plans aimed explicitly at pushing their ideological objectives. It’s clear that both the ABA and the APA prioritize these issues and employ their accreditors to further these ends.
This blatant politicization of accreditation due to their dual roles crosses a line. Given their activist leanings, neither organization should maintain their monopoly over professional training and certification in these fields.
Therefore, NACIQI should advocate for the decertification of these accreditors, paving the way for much-needed competition and prompting discussions about alternative licensing options in state legislatures nationwide.
