Higher Ed’s Reform Problem Isn’t Political—It’s Psychological

How groupthink and ego quietly protect broken institutions.

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!

---

How do you point out to someone that they are out of touch—especially someone with an accomplished career and in a respected position—without watching the conversation spiral into disaster?

That’s the challenge facing those who want to reform higher education accreditation from the inside.

In a recent opinion piece for The Chronicle of Higher Education, Robert Shireman, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, opened with this sweeping claim:

"Relying on private, independent accrediting agencies to assure college quality has been the most important tool for preventing the centralized political control of higher education in the United States."

It’s an impressive line—a confident assertion that conjures up a picture of accreditation as the last noble defense against government overreach.

But it’s also built on several major assumptions, and none of them are substantiated in the piece. While Shireman shifts quickly to warning about possible changes initiated by the Trump administration, this article will stay with the assumptions embedded in his opening thesis. Because if the foundational assumptions don’t hold up, the remainder lacks credibility.

Unpacking the Assumptions

To someone outside the higher ed bubble, these claims might feel unearned, even ideological. Here are just a few of the assumptions baked into that one sentence:

1. Accreditation is reliable.

2. Accreditation assures college quality.

3. Accreditation is the most important mechanism preventing political control.

4. Accreditation has succeeded in preventing centralized political control.

5. A primary or legitimate purpose of accreditation is to prevent government overreach.

Each of these is presented as if it were a given. But are they?

The Disconnect

From inside academia, these ideas may feel self-evident—especially if one’s professional circles are built around institutions shaped by the accrediting process. But from the outside, accreditation often looks like a self-reinforcing club: private agencies determining access to public funds, controlling who gets to teach and influencing who get accepted, and often enforcing ideological conformity under the guise of “quality assurance.”

In short: accreditation has created a centralized control system—it just doesn’t reside in Washington, D.C. It resides in a network of private, federally-empowered agencies that are unelected, unaccountable to the public, and increasingly ideological.

The Evidence Gap

If accreditation has prevented centralized political control, where’s the evidence? Has it prevented politicization, or merely redirected it? Does it protect academic freedom—or restrict it?

Let’s take a closer look.

• Quality assurance? Studies have found little correlation between accreditation status and actual educational outcomes.

• Ideological neutrality? Many accrediting standards now incorporate political frameworks—particularly around DEI—that are often enforced as worldview requirements rather than academic explorations.

• Safeguard against centralization? Ironically, accreditors may be enabling centralization by enforcing conformity at a national scale. When every program must meet the same ideological standards to remain accredited, there's little room for dissenting viewpoints or alternative models.

The Real Danger

By asserting that accreditation is the shield against centralized control, Shireman (perhaps unintentionally) ignores that accreditors themselves have become a form of centralized authority. Worse, because they operate under the radar of public accountability, their influence is harder to detect—and harder to challenge, if it can be challenged at all.

Reframing the Debate

This isn’t about discrediting good people who work in higher ed, nor is it a partisan attack. It’s about clarifying reality so that meaningful reform becomes possible. Reformers must start by naming the elephant in the room: accreditation is not the safeguard it’s portrayed to be. If anything, it’s a mechanism through which political conformity can be enforced, all while appearing "independent."

To move forward, we have to ask better questions:

• What should the purpose of accreditation be?

• Is it constitutional to tie the disbursment of federal funds to a non-governmental organization?

• What happens when the groups that accredit the accreditors are ideologically captured?

• How do we protect both academic freedom and educational quality—without gatekeeping diverse thought?

• Do we need accreditation at all?

There may be value to accreditation going back to its prior role before the 1952 GI Bill turned it into a gatekeeper of federal funds. But citizens should take time to consider what they want out of higher education. With model legislation focused specifically to address accreditation overreach at the state level, reform is coming one way or another.

When taken together with the replication and fraud issues in scientific research, much of the university system is starting to look like a house of cards. The growing number of college closures appears to bear this out. That may be for the best as new ways to self-educate grow and employers look to performance indicators other than college degrees in hiring.

However we decide to solve accreditation woes, until these questions are addressed, we risk mistaking the illusion of freedom for the real thing.

Further Reading

Accreditation on the Edge: Challenging Quality Assurance in Higher Education by Susan D. Phillips and Kevin Kinser

Help Keep This Conversation Going!

• Share this post on social media–it costs nothing but helps a lot. 

• Want more perks? Subscribe to get full access to the article archive. 

• Become a Paid Subscriber to get video and chatroom access.

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 Clinical Mental Health Counseling master’s degree at the University of Tennessee. What I encountered, however, was a program deeply entrenched in Critical Theories ideology. During my time there, I experienced significant resistance, particularly for my Buddhist practice, which was labeled as invalidating to other identities. After careful reflection, I chose to leave the program, believing the curriculum being taught would ultimately harm clients and lead to unethical practices in the field.

Since then, I’ve dedicated myself to investigating, writing, and speaking out about the troubling direction of psychology, higher education, and other institutions that seem to have lost their way. When I’m not working on these issues, you’ll find me in the garden, creating art, walking my dog, or guiding my kids toward adulthood.

You can also find my work at Minding the Campus