ACCREDITORS HAVE GOTTEN TOO BIG FOR THEIR BRITCHES:  A recent example is the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools’ threat to the UNC Board of Trustees’ admirable effort to create a “School of Civic Life and Leadership.”  I hope the Board will be undeterred.

I have previously written about the role accrediting agencies play as “cartel enforcer” for race- and sex-preferential admissions and faculty hiring.  And I’ve suggested a legislative solution.

Here at USD School of Law, the dean has told us that the ABA’s accrediting arm has put us on notice that we must increase the number of women on our faculty right away or face de-accreditation.  Some of my colleagues are either panic-stricken over this or pretend to be.  It’s hard to tell the difference.  Very few (but not zero) of my colleagues have to fortitude to protest the ABA’s tactics.

I am not one of those who believes that we can entirely do without accreditation.  As long as the federal government gives out bundles of cash to colleges and universities, somebody has to be the gatekeeper who decides who will be allowed on the gravy train and who won’t be.  Concentrating that power in federal hands would be a mistake.  Any conservative or libertarian who thinks that federal bureaucrats can be kept under control by an ever-so-vigilant GOP President or White House has been asleep for decades.  At least under the present system, power is in theory decentralized.  Giving the power to the states has some advantages.  But it also has some serious disadvantages.  No state, red, blue or purple polka dots will ever act to cut off a local college or university that employs more than a few people from its federal funding.  Voters don’t like that kind of thing.  There is thus a built-in bias toward keeping the money coming.