Breaking Up with Accreditors: A Satirical Contract for Academic Freedom

Editor’s Note: The following is an excerpt of an article originally published on the author’s Substack Diogenes In Exile on January 10, 2025. With edits to fit MTC’s style, it is crossposted here with permission.

What if accreditors were directly accountable to the people their standards affected the most, students? It would be so much easier to have a proper breakup, that’s for sure. Sadly, college accreditors are not accountable to anyone. They are even shielded from lawsuits, and it will take legislative action to make even modest reforms to their aggressive overreach.

That will be no easy task. Getting people to agree on something is hard enough. You try getting people excited to a point they’ll write their lawmakers about an issue as arcane as accreditation law, even when some standards require so much racist “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) curriculum that there’s little time to teach the subject matter. (Hint hint!)

Fortunately, fiction is always there to provide space for an amusing tangent.

Imagine, this could be worked out the real American Way, with a legal contract! Now, for your entertainment, here is a proposed truce agreement with no legal authority. Note: the following is not a legal document.

[RELATED: The AAUP Discredits Itself]

Contractual Agreement Between Students and College Accreditors: Because Higher Education Shouldn’t be a Vegas Roulette Wheel Where the House Always Wins

This agreement is entered into on this day of—immediately—between Students—hereinafter referred to as “The Trepidatious and Hopefully Homeowning Future”—and College Accreditors—hereinafter referred to as “The Gatekeepers of Wealth and Opportunity. Imposers of Arbitrary Standards”—collectively referred to as “The Recovering Parasitic Relationship.”

WHEREAS the Trepidatious and Hopefully Homeowning Future seeks a reasonably priced education unburdened by nonsense;

AND WHEREAS the Gatekeepers of Wealth and Opportunity. Imposers of Arbitrary Standards have been acting like unregulated Monopoly bankers;

THEREFORE, the Recovering Parasitic Relationship agrees to the following terms:

SECTION 1: THINGS ACCREDITORS MUST STOP IMMEDIATELY

1. Stop Mushrooming: Accreditors shall refrain from adding new bodies to their ranks. If it can’t be covered by the existing 19 university-wide Imposers of Arbitrary Standards, or the 63 program-specific accrediting bodies, each charging universities separately, double dipping for sub-specialties, and adding to the exorbitant cost of tuition, maybe we don’t need it.
2. No More Ideological Gatekeeping: Students’ personal beliefs shall not affect their academic evaluation. This isn’t Hogwarts, and no Sorting Hat is needed. And nobody likes taking a vacation at Lake Laogai either. “Re-education” camp must stop. Period.
3. Cease Being Big Brother: Stop calling for universities to monitor and evaluate students on “intangibles” like their thoughts, feelings, or whether they smile in the hallway. You can’t make requirements for ‘dispositions.’ Students are not reality show contestants.
4. End Indoctrination by Textbooks: Requiring mandatory textbooks that reduce individuals to a list of immutable characteristics shall cease. The blind cis Asian mother called up. She doesn’t want to talk about her body of color, internalized whiteness, or chestfeeding her newborn anymore.
5. No More Rubber-Stamping Dysfunction: Programs that don’t meet standards should lose accreditation. Yes, even if it means you take a pay cut. Yeah, we heard that universities pay you on the regular for the privilege of your gold star. Isn’t that a conflict of interest?
6. Ban ‘Fail Despite Passing’ Policies: If a student meets the academic requirements, they pass. Period. No secret handshake or “intangibles” clause required. Seriously, how is it even legal to require students to embody certain ‘dispositions’ or adopt a ‘professional identity’? Can you even provide concrete definitions of what those terms would look like when a person was in compliance?
7. Stop Knowingly Breaking State Law: Accreditors shall stop requiring standards that break state law. Should I just say that a few more times? What am I missing here? Why do I have to say this?
8. No More Mandatory Advocacy: Students shall not be required to participate in political activism or “advocacy” as part of their training. Therapy ≠ Marching Band.
9. Cease the Buzzword Bingo: Accreditors shall limit usage of terms like “social justice,” “micro-aggressions,” “cultural identities,” and “multigenerational trauma” to one per 100,000,000 pages of accreditation guidelines.
10. Put Down the DEI Kool-Aid: Accreditors shall focus on fostering genuine subject mastery and cease mandating ideology or creating hostile echo chambers.

[RELATED: The Problem with Conflict of Interest]

SECTION 2: FIVE THINGS THE ACCREDITORS MUST DO

1. Transparent Standards: Publish accreditation criteria in plain language so everyone, even that one sleep-deprived law student, can understand.
2. Prioritize Student Outcomes: Focus on meaningful outcomes, like student employment rates in field, drop-out rates, and student debt-to-income ratios, rather than compliance with convoluted benchmarks.
3. Independent Reviews: Conduct regular, independent evaluations of accrediting bodies by average working Americans to ensure accountability. Think of it as an annual “Are We the Baddies?” meeting.
4. Appeals Process for Students: Establish a transparent and accessible appeals process for students who believe accreditation decisions unfairly affect their education. Bonus points if it is independently adjudicated and doesn’t require 15 forms and a sacrificial goat.
5. Support Academic Freedom: Guarantee that professors and students alike can explore diverse perspectives without fear of reprisal. Yes, even opinions you find super icky.

See the remainder of the article here.

Image by Africa Studio — Adobe Stock — Asset ID#: 134156356