Accreditors Thought They Were Untouchable. Then the States Fought Back.

What seemed impossible — reforming higher education’s cartel — is now underway in the South.

Sep 29, 2025

Diogenes In Exile is reader-supported. Keep the lamp of truth burning by becoming a paying subscriber—or toss a few drachmas in the jar with a one-time or recurring donation. Cynics may live in barrels, but websites aren’t free!

Few believed it was possible to challenge accreditors. When I wrote my very first article for Minding the Campus focused on counseling accreditation back in late 2023, several folks tried to warn me off having it published, thinking I was setting my future on fire. The implied message, change is impossible.

Yet today, one of the most entrenched accreditors in the country is bending to market pressure.

As reported in The Chronicle of Higher Education, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACS or SACSCOC) has begun a review, intended to refocus its mission to put students first, increase transparency, and improve a list of other shortcomings to which most watching this decades-long trainwreck would mutter, “It’s about damn time.”

This is, without doubt, a welcome shift, but make no mistake, this is very long in coming and wasn’t inspired by principled internal reflection.

Catching Up on the Backstory

Incoming president of SACS, Stephen L. Pruitt, is taking over leadership from Belle S. Wheelan, who held court over the last 20 years of stagnation. Pruitt’s promise to review policies and standards is an effort to stanch the bleeding as dozens of Southern colleges look to jump ship to alternative accreditors.

Currently and traditionally, SACS has served as accreditor to 750+ colleges in 11 Southern states. But it has been under fire for high costs, intrusive oversight, and political bias, resulting in little if any benefit other than the release of federal Pell grants and other federal funds for which accreditation is required.

With Governor Ron DeSantis leading the charge, Florida and North Carolina have passed laws that force colleges and universities to switch accreditors after regular cycles. This broke up the entrenched tradition, which kept universities locked into only being accredited by their assigned regional accreditor, and it created an outlet from overbearing practices by introducing competition.

Leadership in the southern states didn’t stop there. A coalition of six state university systems, including Texas A&M, the University System of Georgia, the University of North Carolina, the State University System of Florida, the University of South Carolina System, and the University of Tennessee System, formed a new accreditation body that is on track to be recognized and ready to take on colleges in just 2 years.

With other federal reforms on the horizon under the Trump administration, suffice it to say, SACS is feeling the heat.

Why Competition Makes the Difference

History shows a clear pattern: whether it was A&P grocery stores or Ma Bell, the closer any business or nonprofit drifts toward monopoly control, the more it breeds complacency, inefficiency, and abuse of power.

It is a basic market principle, competition forces institutions to serve their stakeholders, improve quality, and cut costs. Economists like Bryan Caplan have been pointing out how easy federal dollars and perverse incentives have been making college worse for years. Lack of competition in accreditation has been a big part of that mudslide.

SACS has gotten the message. Pruitt even asks, “Why would people stay with us if we’re not willing to respond to needs of members?” Why indeed?

The Legal Dimension: Breaking the Cartel

The reason this reform took so long and seemed so hopeless is a reflection of both a general disinterest in the details of higher education regulation (this is not a sexy subject), and the weird place that accreditation sits in a legal sense.

While it began as a way for neighboring colleges to help each other improve, when the government co-opted this process to assure taxpayers that GI Bill money wouldn’t go to diploma mills, it distorted the mission of accreditation from trying to improve education to one of being responsible for assuring a minimum standard. And it did this without creating any mechanism for oversight or accountability.

In that legal space, the free market didn’t apply. With most accreditors being 501(c)3 non-profits, the going theory seemed to be that they would, by nature, function for the common good. The last 60+ years have shown that thinking to be naive.

With many other pressing concerns, finding the political juice to move forward with reforms on something as arcane as accreditation has required both a significant breakdown in university functioning and a rise in leadership from state government.

The importance of what Governor DeSantis did can not be understated. Without the changes in legislation that forced Florida colleges to look elsewhere for accreditation when their terms ended, these groups would have remained shielded from competition.

More states need to follow suit to maintain and deepen market forces that ensure the health competition needed to return higher education to a trusted institution.

The Larger Problem: Profession-Specific Accreditation Monopolies

While the announcement of the SACS review is great news for undergraduate programs across the country, the same can not be said for profession-specific graduate programs like law schools, social work, or counseling.

These groups and others like them have little to no competition, so even changes in the law would have to wait for the formation of new nonprofit organizations by interested others.

Unlike regional accreditors, which were affected by Florida law, these groups remain unchecked, requiring whatever they want regardless of the impacts on students and society. Reform won’t be complete until these monopolies have also been addressed.

Political Flashpoint, Ideology, and DEI

To his credit, one of Pruitt’s first changes was to remove SACS’s DEI statement and acknowledge that it had become politically charged. While this change is more symbolic than structural for the moment, it does signify an acknowledgement of how out of step higher ed accreditation has been with the needs and attitudes of the general public.

Conservative lawmakers are right to be wary. Profession-specific accreditors in particular have strayed deep into politics, losing sight of the mission of quality assurance in favor of ideological mind control. This has warped training programs and is rapidly remaking the professions themselves.

Reform, the Hopeful Turn

While profession-specific accreditors still rule with iron fists, the shift in SACS proves that entrenched institutions can change under external pressure, and legislative efforts should not be abandoned for fear of failure.

If anything, the key lesson is that legislation that creates competition ultimately produces accountability.

For decades, critics were told nothing could be done about accreditation. Now the impossible is happening. With only a pair of states with passed legislation, that has been enough to change the tide.

The Chance to Set Things Right

SACS is not alone in responding to pressure. The WASC Senior College and University Commission, the New England Commission of Higher Education, and the Higher Learning Commission have all begun revising or abandoning their DEI standards. These changes are decades in the making — and they mark a significant breakthrough.

But this is only the opening chapter.

Accreditation, if it is even worth preserving, must serve students, parents, and the public — not itself, and certainly not the demands of an ideologically motivated minority. The leadership change at SACS and its sweeping review show that even the most entrenched systems can be reformed when one state dares to act.

With sustained pressure from citizens, lawmakers, and reformers, we can finish the job and ensure accreditation is accountable, transparent, and truly in service of education.

Support from readers like you keeps this project alive!

Diogenes in Exile is reader-supported. If you find value in this work, please consider becoming a pledging/paid subscriber, donating to my GiveSendgo, or buying Thought Criminal merch. I’m putting everything on the line to bring this to you because I think it is just that important, but if you can, I need your help to keep this mission alive.

Already a Premium subscriber? Share your thoughts in the chat room.

About

Diogenes in Exile began after I returned to grad school to pursue a master’s degree in Clinical Mental Health Counseling at the University of Tennessee. What I found instead was a program saturated in Critical Theories ideology—where my Buddhist practice was treated as invalidating and where dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy was met with hostility. After witnessing how this ideology undermined both ethics and the foundations of good clinical practice, I made the difficult decision to walk away.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to exposing the ideological capture of psychology, higher education, and related institutions. My investigative writing has appeared in Real Clear Education, Minding the Campus, The College Fix, and has been republished by the American Council of Trustees and Alumni. I also speak and consult on policy reform to help rebuild public trust in once-respected professions.

Occasionally, I’m accused of being funny.

When I’m not writing or digging into documents, you’ll find me in the garden, making art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.