News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education
April 15
Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.
Advertisement
The recent US Appeals court decision that repeated the lower court opinion that SACS is not a “state actor” demonstrates how the gatekeeping triad for Title IV funds sometimes works in the government’s favor.
If the regional accrediting agencies were “absorbed,” or federalized (as part of an effort to reform them), then institutions unhappy with accrediting decisions would have constitutional grounds to sue — to sue the government itself.
Thus, the delegation of accrediting matters to supposedly independent regional agencies conveniently *shields* the federal government from the wrath of unhappy institutions.
As this Appeals Court decision shows, the US Dept of Education can withhold access to Title IV funds on the basis of, in this case, regional accrediting decisions.
But the opinion also pointed out that the Higher Education Act (HEA), which authorizes US Dept of Education oversight of Title IV, does *not* provide standing to private citizens wishing to sue the Secretary regarding Title IV matters.
Unhappy institutions are therefore caught in a Catch-22.
Even though the Secretary can remove access to Title IV funds, he/she cannot be sued on the basis of HEA. And since the regional accreditor is not a state actor or government agency, their accrediting decisions are valid — unless they can be shown to be arbitrary and capricious, or lacking in due process, which was not done in this case.
Literally, there is nowhere for an institution, whose accreditation has been terminated, to turn.
Glen S. McGhee, Dir., at Florida Higher Education Accountability Project, at 9:20 pm EDT on April 15, 2008
Advertisement
or search for jobs directly.
A leader in academe, the University of South Carolina holds the Carnegie Foundation’s highest research designation and is ... see job
Angelo State University’s work environment is often described as an employee community. This applies to the work culture ... see job
The University of North Carolina is seeking a director for our Macromolecular X-Ray Crystallography Facility (non-tenure ... see job
Position Summary: The Field Manager in the Office of Design and Construction will represent the University ... see job
Join the Pack! A community with nearly 8,000 faculty and staff, and 30,000 students. NC State is one of the largest employers ... see job
Everest Institute is a world-class educational institution and a rapidly growing part of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. At ... see job
Position Summary: Under the direction of supervisor, the Building Custodian performs cleaning tasks in a ... see job
Assistant Director of Recreational Sports Informal Recreation and Special Events LOYOLA COLLEGE IN MARYLAND BALTIMORE, ... see job
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF GIFT PLANNING — Gift Planning see job
The University of Minnesota is a premier employer and a talent magnet attracting leading faculty and staff from around the ... see job
Consider Referrals
Significant gains at UC seem to reflect the quantity of admits rather than full consideration of campus quality (i.e., educational excellence) as a vital admission factor to all applicants. That is, when 8,450 UC-eligible applicants are “referred” to a campus (e.g., UC Merced) other than their choice (e.g., UCLA), does this differ much from a unit on any university campus “referring” particular admits to an Academic Opportunity Center? It is notable that Latino and African-American admissions rose by 16% and 11%, respectively. However, too which campuses (i.e., what quality of higher education) will underrepresented admits have access? Since every UC campus has support systems, why steer underrepresented admits toward specific campuses that do not offer what the celebrated locations provide?
Dr. Beverley Pickering-Reyna, Director of Diversity/Gender Initiatives at University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, at 10:35 am EDT on April 15, 2008