On May 14, 2025, the American Council for Education, backed by over 50 higher education groups, issued a statement titled “A Call to Reforge the Historic Compact Between Higher Education and the Federal Government.” They’re pushing back against the Trump administration’s plan to cut university funding and eliminate DEI programs, claiming the government-university partnership makes American higher education “the envy of the world.”
But does government meddling improve our colleges? Let’s zero in on accreditation—the system that decides which schools get taxpayer funds and enables big institutions to block new competitors. The free market would do a better job of ensuring quality.
Consider the Middle States Commission on Higher Education—one of seven regional accreditors gatekeeping federal funding. It oversees many colleges, claiming to champion quality education, serve students, and wield power responsibly.
Sounds noble, doesn’t it? Yet, Middle States fails on three counts—its standards push progressive ideology over academics, support failing institutions, and fail to protect students’ free speech rights. The Commission reflects broader flaws in accreditation. The long-term solution is clear: reverse government intervention and let the free market drive higher education.
What is Accreditation?
Every year, the federal government doles out over $100 billion to college students through loans, grants, and work-study programs. But how does it decide which schools are worthy? It doesn’t. That job is outsourced to private gatekeepers: the accreditors.
Accreditation is pitched as a quality-control system for higher education. In reality, it’s a government-backed cartel. Seven regional accrediting agencies control access to federal funds. If a school isn’t accredited, its students can’t get federal aid. That’s the kiss of death in modern higher ed.
These accreditors aren’t neutral observers. They’re associations of existing colleges, meaning they have a strong incentive to block or limit competition. Imagine if new airlines had to get permission from Delta and United before taking off.
That wasn’t always the case. In the late 19th century, accreditation was voluntary. Colleges teamed up to set basic standards without government involvement. But in 1965, Congress passed the Higher Education Act and handed accreditors the keys to the federal vault. From that point on, accreditation was no longer optional—it was essential for survival.
Try starting a new college today. You’ll be asking your competitors to let you in. Between 2002 and 2022, fewer than 8 percent of newly-founded schools received regional accreditation. If that sounds like protectionism, that’s because it is.
And the control doesn’t stop there. Want to add graduate programs? Merge with another college? Launch a new curriculum? You’ll need permission from your accreditor. These agencies wield monopoly power, granted and enforced by the government.
Middle States: The Problem in Microcosm
In April 2025, President Trump signed an executive order to reform higher education accreditation. The order directed the Department of Education to investigate accreditor-imposed DEI standards and to fast-track the approval of new accrediting bodies.
The Middle States Commission on Higher Education—which oversees institutions in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, DC, and several US territories—swiftly issued a defensive statement. “We have never abused our authority,” it insisted. “We do not approve low-quality institutions.” But Middle States fails on both counts—and a third: protecting student rights. In all three areas, Middle States illustrates the dangers of state-backed monopoly accreditation.
First, Middle States has openly politicized its standards by elevating DEI ideology to the level of institutional mission. In its Standards for Accreditation and Requirements of Affiliation (14th Edition), DEI is listed as one of the Commission’s 5 guiding principles. Officials at a conservative college I spoke with insisted DEI is only evaluated relative to an institution’s mission. But if that were true, why formalize DEI in the standards?
In reality, codifying DEI empowers progressives within the accreditation system and pressures Christian and conservative colleges to conform. Middle States’s ideological bias isn’t subtle—it signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court supporting race-based admissions at Harvard and UNC Chapel Hill.
In a free market for accreditation, this kind of politicization would invite competition. Institutions that reject progressive ideology would flock to merit-based accreditors, forcing politicized ones to change or become obsolete.
Second, Middle States accredits failing institutions. It offers a binary certification: a school is either accredited or not, whether it’s the University of Pennsylvania or a local community college. Accreditation, in other words, tells you almost nothing about quality. Worse, it gives a veneer of legitimacy to collapsing institutions. Take the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. Despite years of financial decline and plummeting enrollment, it kept its Middle States accreditation until it announced its closure in 2024. Middle States didn’t revoke its accreditation—it waited for the school to fold.
In a competitive market, accreditors would have reputational skin in the game. Endorsing a failing institution would damage their brand and drive away member schools.
Third, Middle States has failed to uphold its own free speech standards. Its guidelines explicitly require member schools to protect academic freedom and free expression under Standard II. Yet, in 2017, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute cracked down on student protests, removed flyers, and enforced vague rules to suppress dissent. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) filed a formal complaint. Middle States never responded. A similar complaint involving NYU never resulted in meaningful action.
Today, five of Middle States’s accredited schools rank “poor” or “very poor” in FIRE’s free speech rankings. Without market pressure, there’s no incentive to investigate or enforce violations of free speech rights. Since other accreditors are not much better than Middle States, there aren’t competitive pressures to protect free speech.
Middle States is not unique; instead, the Commission is emblematic of accreditation’s problems. It shows what happens when an unaccountable, monopoly accreditor imposes political ideology, certifies failing colleges, and ignores student rights.
The Solution: A Market for Accreditation
Does accreditation improve the quality of higher education? Not when it’s backed by federal power. Government intervention shields accreditors from competition, allowing established institutions to block reform, suppress dissent, and entrench ideology.
It’s a good sign that the Trump administration is moving to reform the system. But the executive order doesn’t go far enough. The real problem is structural: accreditors enjoy monopoly control because they determine access to public funds. As long as the state picks the gatekeepers, accreditors have no reason to innovate, no fear of failure, and no accountability to students.
The solution isn’t better bureaucrats—it’s markets. Sever the link between accreditors and government money. Let institutions choose among competing evaluators. Let accreditors earn their reputation, not inherit it. Real reform means trusting markets, not the state.
