Introduction
State legislatures who want effective higher education reform must take back control of the public universities from the accrediting organizations. The activist education establishment uses interlocking bureaucracies to impose ever tighter social justice requirements on public universities without the consent of policymakers or of citizens, and to avoid responsibility for what they’re doing. Accrediting organizations use an administrator from one state university to impose a race preference requirement on the neighboring state university in the name of diversity. The next year they use an administrator from yet another state’s university to return the favor.
State legislatures can take back control of their public universities. The accreditation system requires the consent of every accredited institution of higher education. The state government has given the higher education establishment the power to give this consent, but it can take this power back. The state legislature and governor should act together and send official guidance to the college presidents of its public university system. This guidance should direct college presidents to vote for or against any preferred candidate or policy in accreditation organizations. State policymakers can use official guidance to cripple the ability of activists to use accrediting organizations to impose their policies on the public universities.
State policymakers also should ensure that accrediting organizations do not attempt to undermine state exercise of its supervisory power over its public universities. State policymakers should have the power to immunize the state public universities from sabotage by accrediting organizations, and to take legal action to prevent such sabotage.
We provide here a model law that authorizes state policymakers to give instructions to university officials on how to vote in accreditation organizations and which gives state policymakers the ability to resist and respond to accrediting organization interference in state supervisory power over public universities.
Model Legislative Text
Section A [“Accreditation Autonomy”]
- By adoption of a joint resolution, the Legislature may direct the {Board of Regents} of the {State} public university system, each institution of higher education that receives state funding, and any responsible official in each institution of higher education, to cast their votes as members of accrediting organizations for or against any candidate, policy, or any other matter. If the joint resolution is vetoed by the Governor and the veto has not been overridden, the joint resolution shall have no effect.
- If the joint resolution becomes law, that decision shall have the same force and effect of law as agency rules. The {Board of Regents} of the {State} public university system, each institution of higher education that receives state funding, and any responsible official in each institution of higher education shall enact all policies and regulations necessary to put that decision into effect immediately; and shall enact or execute no policy or regulation that contravenes that decision.
- Any responsible official in the {Board of Regents} of the {State} public university system or an institution of higher education that receives state funding who casts as a vote contrary to the provisions of Section A, Subsection 1 shall be deemed guilty of violating the laws of this State and shall immediately forfeit employment by the {State} public university system.
- No vote contrary to the provisions of this law by the {Board of Regents} of the {State} public university system, any institution of higher education that receives state funding, or any responsible official in each institution of higher education, shall give any institutional consent to any candidate, policy, or any other matter, pertaining to an accrediting organization.
Section B [“Accrediting Organizations—Adverse Action against Institutions for Compliance with State LawProhibited”]
- An accrediting organization shall not take any adverse action against any institution of higher education for complying with a state law or refusing to violate a state law.
- Any adverse action taken by an accrediting agency against an institution of higher education based, in whole or in part, on the institution’s compliance with a state law or refusal to violate a state law constitutes a violation of this section that is subject to section C below.
Section C [“Civil Action”]
A public institution of higher education that is negatively affected by adverse action taken against the institution by an accrediting agency in violation of section B above may bring a civil action against the accrediting agency in this state if authorized by the attorney general. The attorney general may bring the action on behalf of the institution. The institution or attorney general may obtain injunctive relief and liquidated damages in the amount of the federal financial aid received by the institution in the academic year preceding the violation, as well as court costs and reasonable attorney fees.
Section D [“Effective Date”]
This Act, being deemed of immediate importance, takes effect upon enactment.
Section E [“Definitions”]
- “Accrediting organization” means an entity that provides accreditation of public institutions of higher education and that is not a government agency.
Section F [“Severability”]
If any provision of this chapter, or the application of any provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be invalid, the remainder of this chapter and the application of its provisions to any other person or circumstance shall not be affected thereby.
Existing State Statutes and Proposed Bills
Florida Senate Bill 7044 (2022)
Iowa House Bill 295 (2025)
The National Association of Scholars, in consultation with other supporters and friends of the Civics Alliance, drafted these model bills to translate into legislative language the principles in the Civics Alliance’s Civics Curriculum Statement & Open Letter. Just as these bills have been drafted with the expectation that different states will modify them as they see fit, they also have been drafted with the expectation that not every supporter of the Civics Alliance will endorse these bills or every part of them. Individual Civics Alliance signatories and supporters should not be assumed to have endorsed these bills, unless they say so explicitly.