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!
On 24 September 2026, the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) voted to recommend suspending the accreditation arm of the American Psychological Association (APA CoA). All that awaits is the expected confirmation by the Department of Education.
In my corner of X, there has been both jubilation and shock. Yet many folks are just hearing about accreditation for the first time. So in this short post, we’ll have a little recap, and a look at what might lie ahead.
What is Accreditation?
In higher education, accreditation has been around since the late 1700s. It began as a voluntary institution, developed to help colleges and universities find ways to improve their teaching.
After the government started to offer the GI bill, accreditation was tapped to prevent fraud by verifying that a school met a minimum standard of quality.
While the U.S. Department of Education (ED) was responsible for recognizing accreditors, accreditors for the most part were trusted to work under their own devices, and it didn’t take long for them to realize they held considerable power, use it, and then inevitably abuse it.
Fast forward to today, and the evidence of accreditors abusing their power is considerable. The testimony against the APA during the NACIQI hearing was filled with examples of antisemitism, racist and bigoted instruction, and a large scale social justice takeover of psychologist training programs.
The APA protested that they didn’t know these things were happening, so given the scale, the audience was left to decide whether they were incompetent or speaking in bad faith. It’s not surprising that its standards have been suspended.
What Happens Now?
The NACIQI is an advisory committee. Its recommendation will be passed higher up in the ED, where the final action will be taken, but there is little expectation that the ED will reverse the call, which means the APA should be bracing for impact.
The APA has the next year to shape up its act, after which it will be evaluated again for whether it will continue to be recognized by the ED. Most likely it will spend this time rewriting its standards and cracking down on the most egregious events of bullying and bigotry.
Depending on how the midterm elections go, it may choose to bide its time more than clean house. That part is hard to say.
What’s more interesting, and arguably more important, is what the public and psychology professionals should be doing?
With the APA CoA on hiatus, this is an opportunity for psychology professionals to build new things, and focus attention on state licensing boards.
Many licensing boards require or favor degrees earned under a specific accreditor for professionals to get licensed. If the APA has its accreditation power stripped 12 months from now, this will cause havoc across the states as new graduates have to figure out how to get licensed when their degree is no longer accredited.
States should be laying the groundwork for new licensing rules.
That might look something like what’s happening in Delaware, where Democrat Governor Meyer has signed a new Executive Order to cut red tape and streamline licensing so that people can get to work.
His measures specifically call for any restrictions that aren’t supported by evidence proving they protect the public or improve services to be cut.
In this polarized, DEI traumatized world, many take a jaundiced view of Governor Meyer’s announcement, but it is worth pointing out that there isn’t any social justice or culture war language, and if you covered up the state location and the governor’s political party, it would be easy to mistake this press release for one coming from a deeply red state.
Time will tell if this is real regulatory clean up or a bait and switch, but color me mildly optimistic or at least hopeful.
On the other end, psychologists should be banding together to form an alternative to the APA, and perhaps get behind the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS), a small accreditor competing with the APA.
PCSAS says its “scope is narrower with a goal to accredit those doctoral programs that adhere to a clinical science training model. The APA-CoA accredits a broader range of programs. PCSAS currently accredits 49 programs; APA accredits over 500 programs.”
Were the APA CoA stripped of its accreditation power in a year, PCSAS could find itself spoiled for choice in programs wanting their seal of approval, but a lot rides on whether states change their licensing requirements.
The bigger question is if PCSAS is significantly different from the APA CoA. This line from their FAQ answers what they expect in approved programs, “Every program concentrates on ethics, research methods, data analysis, and on issues of individual differences and diversity, equity, inclusions [sic] and social justice.”
Maybe not so different after all.
Whether psychology can take this opportunity to save itself remains to be seen. A lot rides on practitioners, researchers, and professors who are dedicated to objective truth and are willing to strike out on their own, either to build a new accreditor, or find a new way to establish that practitioners are competent and reality based.
Given what the field has shown us in recent years, that may be a tall order. NACIQI recommended suspension or no.
Help Keep This Conversation Going!
Share this post on social media. It costs nothing but helps a lot.
Become a subscriber. Higher subscriber numbers would draw in guest writers and interesting folks for interviews.
Want more perks? Become a Paid Subscriber to get chatroom access and let’s talk about what else Diogenes In Exile can do.
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 The Federalist, Real Clear Education, Heterodox STEM, 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, or walking my dog.
Good news! Maybe the Lindsey Clancy trial helped to push this into the spotlight a little more?
Sounds like a good thing. Accrediting boards have been blocking real reform in many ways, not just about Woke stuff.