Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Reforms Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education

TLDR

This is a “fact” sheet for an executive order that targets accreditation in higher education by labeling DEI initiatives as “unlawful discrimination,” claiming accreditors approve “low-quality institutions” with poor graduation rates, asserting many degrees offer “negative ROI,” and alleging focus has shifted from “student success to ideological conformity.” It makes contested claims about “ideological overreach,” the ABA’s diversity standards, and “intellectual diversity,” while ignoring factors affecting student outcomes, potential destabilization from rapid changes, impacts on specialized accreditation, standardization across different institutions, and accreditation’s multiple purposes.

The “fact” sheet for the referenced executive order presents a partisan view of higher education accreditation issues with several misleading or unsupported claims:

1. The fact sheet characterizes DEI (diversity, equity, and inclusion) standards as “unlawful discrimination” without addressing that federal courts have not universally ruled DEI initiatives illegal. The Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard specifically addressed admissions practices, not all DEI initiatives or accreditation standards.

2. The document claims accreditors have “routinely approved low-quality institutions” citing a 64% six-year graduation rate as evidence of failure. However, this statistic lacks context - graduation rates have been steadily improving over time, and the cited figure doesn’t acknowledge variations across institution types or student demographics.

3. The claim that “25% of bachelor’s degrees and over 40% of master’s degrees offer a negative return on investment” is presented without methodology or source. Return on investment calculations for education are notoriously complex and dependent on numerous factors including field of study, geography, and economic conditions.

4. The fact sheet claims accreditors have “diverted focus from student success to ideological conformity” without evidence that DEI initiatives have detracted from academic quality assurance or educational outcomes.

It further makes several problematic assertions:

1. The characterization of accreditors as imposing “ideological overreach” frames standard quality assurance practices in politically charged terms. Accreditation has historically been a peer-review process established by educational institutions themselves, not government authorities.

2. The fact sheet states the ABA’s standards require “unlawful race-based preferences,” but doesn’t acknowledge that the ABA had already suspended enforcement of certain diversity standards pending revision after the Supreme Court ruling.

3. The document presents “intellectual diversity” as a priority without defining what this means in practice or how it would be measured by accreditors.

4. The fact sheet presents correlation (low completion rates at some institutions) as causation (accreditors failing in their duty), ignoring other significant factors affecting student outcomes including funding cuts, rising costs, student preparation, and socioeconomic factors.

The fact sheet fails to mention the potential destabilizing effects on higher education institutions of rapidly changing accreditation requirements or allowing easier switching between accreditors. And, the document does not address how the proposed changes would impact specialized accreditation in fields where specific professional competencies must be maintained. There is no mention is made of how student outcome measures would be standardized across vastly different types of institutions serving different student populations. Finally, the fact sheet doesn’t acknowledge that accreditation serves multiple purposes, including quality assurance, eligibility for federal funding, credit transfer, and professional licensure requirements.