Accreditors Barred from Considering Race and Sex Makeup of College Staff and Students

The aptly named “Fairness in Higher Education Accreditation Act” is a major shake-up to how colleges are policed for quality—and who gets to decide what ‘quality’ means. This bill targets the gatekeepers: the accrediting agencies that colleges need to keep the federal funding flowing. Basically, it tells those agencies they have to ignore certain things when they review a school, and it gives colleges a new legal weapon if they don’t.

The Ban on Demographic Review: What Accreditors Can’t Ask

Section 2 of this Act drops a massive restriction on accreditors. From now on, they can’t set standards or investigate a college based on the race, color, sex, or national origin makeup of its students, faculty, or staff. Think about that for a second. If an accrediting body usually checks to make sure a college is making reasonable efforts toward diversity or equity—say, ensuring faculty hiring practices aren't systemically excluding certain groups—this bill pulls the rug out from under that oversight.

It gets even more specific: accreditors must also allow any college they review to adopt any lawful policy regarding these demographic factors. This means if a college wanted to roll back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts, or even adopt policies that could be seen as discriminatory (as long as they don’t violate existing federal law), the accreditor’s hands are tied. They can’t use a lack of diversity or questionable hiring practices as a reason to withhold or threaten accreditation. For the student who relies on accreditation to ensure their degree is worth something, this is a big deal. It removes a key external check on institutional fairness.

Academic Freedom Gets a New Definition (and a Major Carve-Out)

This legislation also attempts to clarify what “free inquiry” means for colleges, a concept usually tied to academic freedom. For public colleges, the bill defines "free inquiry" as adhering to the First Amendment (freedom of speech, association, etc.) and following their own written rules on academic freedom. For private colleges, it just means following their own written policies. This seems straightforward, but it sets a lower bar for private schools and potentially muddies the water for public ones by linking the First Amendment to internal accreditation rules.

Crucially, the bill offers a massive exemption to these "free inquiry" rules for religious institutions. If a school is controlled by a religious organization, has a religious mission statement, or requires adherence to religious practices, they are largely exempt from having to follow these new free inquiry standards. This means certain religious schools maintain maximum autonomy, even if their policies related to speech or association might conflict with what's generally expected of accredited institutions.

The New Lawsuit Option: Colleges Get the Upper Hand

Section 3 gives colleges a powerful new tool: the right to sue their accreditor. If a college is facing the threat of losing its accreditation, or if it’s actually revoked, they can file a civil lawsuit against the accrediting agency if the action was taken because the college violated the new demographic prohibition rules laid out in Section 2.

This provision fundamentally changes the relationship between colleges and their accreditors. Accreditation is supposed to be a peer-review process focused on quality assurance. By granting a specific, fast-track right to sue over these new demographic rules, the bill essentially politicizes the accreditation process. Accreditors, already operating on tight budgets, may hesitate to enforce standards related to equity or diversity for fear of being dragged into costly, drawn-out litigation. This shifts the balance of power decisively toward the institutions being reviewed.