What’s in Store for the Future of Accreditation?
ACRL Webinar Urges Librarians to Respond to Proposed Rule Changes
Posted on in Blog Posts, Webinars
Posted on September 29, 2026 in Blog Posts
Authors:
Fatima Mohie-Eldin
On September 14, the Association of College and Research Libraries hosted its latest “ACRL Presents” webinar on the Department of Education’s proposed rule change to accreditation in higher education. The webinar brought together Mike Gavin, CEO of the Alliance for Higher Education, and Lisa Varga, Chief Advocacy Officer for ALA’s Public Policy and Advocacy Office, for a discussion moderated by ACRL President and Dean of the Georgetown University Library, Dr. Alexia Hudson-Ward. The panelists discussed why the proposed change is so significant, what the potential fallout would be for academic freedom, and how librarians in particular are ideally poised to respond with comments by the September 21 deadline. Despite initial fears of retaliation, many attendees expressed resurgent confidence in their ability to take action by the end of the session.
Earlier this month, the Department of the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service jointly proposed to eliminate private colleges’ tax-exempt status if they maintain DEI programs or “provide targeted help to students based on their race,” especially in admissions or scholarships. The outcry among higher education leaders has been swift, with many recognizing this as an escalation in the Trump administration’s ongoing attempts to pressure schools into adopting its anti-DEI agenda. Tim Powers, a vice president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, noted that “the proposed rule may create new compliance burdens and legal uncertainties for institutions of higher education that are already operating in line with existing nondiscrimination rules.”
After being singled out by the Trump administration last year for diversity considerations in its accreditation standards, the American Bar Association just recently struck down Standard 206, which required law schools to “demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion by providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities.” This move came after the ABA initially proposed simply changing the name of Standard 206, which the administration rejected. The next step, according to Chair Melissa Hart of the ABA’s accreditation council, was to cut Standard 206 entirely to maintain the ABA’s accreditor status (it is the only accreditation body for law schools in the United States).
In July, the Department of Homeland Security adopted a new rule that would limit F and J visa holders’ admission to the United States to a four-year period (with the possibility of extension), whereas, previously, visa conditions permitted international students and cultural exchange visitors to remain for “duration of status.” However, on September 14, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV blocked this move by ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration et al v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al (2026) case, reasoning that “the policy [was] based on ‘exceptionally weak’ rationales.” Given that there are currently around 2 million F and J visa holders in the United States combined, the impact of this rule change would be drastic, if enforced. As Judge Saylor wrote in his ruling, “the damage to the higher education system and to the economy of the United States [was] likely to be catastrophic” if the rule had been enacted.
As the University of California system considers reintroducing standardized testing as an admissions requirement, Prof. Jesse Rothstein, who directs the Center for Studies in Higher Education at the University of California at Berkeley, argues that doing so will not automatically raise incoming student standards. Although he acknowledges what opponents of the no-testing policy have also witnessed, that incoming students seem much less prepared than in years past, Prof. Rothstein contends that new students’ lack of preparedness is not specific to the UC system, but rather a nationwide trend. He recently issued a policy brief that analyzes these trends alongside UC admissions data from before and after the decision to make testing optional. As he articulates, reintroducing standardized testing as an admission requirement will not necessarily address the deeper, more systemic issue of new students entering college unprepared.
The fallout from the Trump administration’s 2025 executive order on ending DEI continues as colleges and universities across the country cut programs that focus on race, gender, or sexuality out of fear of being investigated and possibly losing funding. Currently caught in this net are Black studies programs, which are either being cut completely or merged into other departments. According to Dr. Shaun Harper, a professor at the University of Southern California who studies racial equity, cuts have been most pronounced in the Midwest and the South. He and other Black studies professors are speaking out against these cuts to underscore the field’s necessity. As Dr. Harper noted, “if we have millions of college-educated white Americans who go into the world not knowing anything about any other population besides white people, they are going to make lots of costly, very embarrassing mistakes.”
Header image is a detail of This is Harlem by Jacob Lawrence. Courtesy of Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. © 2021 The Jacob and Gwendolyn Knight Lawrence Foundation, Seattle / Artists Rights Society (ARS), New York. For more information, click here.
ACRL Webinar Urges Librarians to Respond to Proposed Rule Changes
Posted on in Blog Posts, Webinars
Posted on in Blog Posts
TIE and Choice resources that highlight Latinx scholarship, literature, and activism
Posted on in Blog Posts
Posted on in Blog Posts