Accreditor Panel Tables Vote on ABA Recognition

The Education Department’s accreditation advisory committee was slated to vote Wednesday on whether to deny federal recognition to the American Bar Association’s accreditation council, but after seven hours of tense discussion, the committee opted to punt the decision to at least tomorrow.

The 16 committee members in attendance were split on whether to extend recognition. Some wanted to give the accreditation council time to address the Education Department’s concerns, while others wanted to deny recognition, as the Trump administration recommended last month. After a member in favor of the department’s position left the meeting, the committee voted to table the discussion.

The Trump administration has long been at odds with the ABA, which serves as the primary accreditor for law schools. For a handful of institutions, it serves as the gatekeeper to federal student aid. If ABA lost its federal recognition, those institutions would no longer have access to student loans. It could also affect graduates’ ability to practice law in certain states.

Among other claims in its recommendation, ED argued one of the council’s diversity, equity and inclusion standards violated the 2023 Supreme Court decision barring colleges from considering race in admissions and had not been amended in a timely fashion. The council said that under the Biden administration, it was told it did not have to change its DEI standard. But when President Trump took office, they moved to amend the policy. It was ultimately repealed earlier this month.

The department’s panel, formally known as National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), spent much of its meeting Wednesday discussing the department’s recommendation. It also heard from more than 20 public commenters as well as the ABA council, which defended its bid to maintain federal recognition.

And while the politicized topic of DEI practices did come up throughout the NACIQI meeting, it was a procedural matter—whether the council was sufficiently “separate and independent” from the broader ABA—that forced the committee into a stalemate.

The council’s bylaws still require the broader ABA governing body, the House of Delegates, to consult on any changes to its policies—a stipulation that the Trump administration says can unnecessarily delay the council’s final decisions. Department officials and some NACIQI members add that the council also depends on the ABA to handle the invoicing of its bills, approve the members of its voting panel and host its annual meeting, among other things.

Collectively, they argue, these are all signs of dependence on the trade group and a violation of federal statute.

The majority of NACIQI members agreed that the ABA accreditation council was not independent enough. But some wanted to give the agency a year to address the issue.

“I would like nothing more [than] for this agency to finally become separate and independent. However, I’m not sure we get there by terminating their recognition,” said Jennifer Blum, a NACIQI member appointed by House Republicans. “I want to hold their feet to the fire.”

Blum proposed extending the accreditors’ recognition for 12 months. In that time, she said, the council would have to submit two reports and demonstrate corrective action, especially in regards to the separate and independent standard, before a final decision would be made. The council would also be unable to accredit new programs during that time.

But the motion failed in a tie vote: 8 to 8. The deciding tally came from the committee chair, Jay P. Greene, who was appointed by Education Secretary Linda McMahon. Typically, the chair doesn’t participate unless his or her vote would be the deciding factor; a tie, which fails a proposal, counts as deciding.

Steven Taylor, who was also appointed by McMahon and voted against Blum’s proposal, admitted that he had been torn on the matter throughout the day. But he said it was how the accreditation council responded to concerns about its independence that helped him make a final decision.

“A compliance report makes a lot of sense when I have confidence that an agency shows up humble, concedes where they’ve gotten it wrong and really demonstrates a desire … to get back on a path to full compliance,” Taylor said, “But I’ve seen or heard nothing along the lines today of ‘we want to comply with full separat[ion] and independence.’ In fact, I’ve heard excuses. So after reviewing the full record and listening carefully today, I just don’t have that confidence.”

The accreditation council argued before the committee that it was and still is adhering to the department’s criteria for federal recognition, including on independence. Daniel Thies, the council’s immediate past chair, said in his opening statement that “it’s our position that we are already in compliance with all these things.”

He later acknowledged, for example, that the ABA’s Department of Financial Services prints out the council’s invoices and mail them off. But Thies added that “if they weren’t doing that for us, we’d pay a third party to do that, and I believe that’s consistent with the criteria.”

After the tie, Bob Eitel, a committee member appointed by the administration who, like Taylor, had voted against the extension, proposed to deny the council’s federal recognition. The committee again deadlocked.

The vote to defy the administration was fraught at times. Blum noted that this was the final NACIQI meeting of her term. “I’m hoping to get renewed,” she said, “But I’ve got to vote my conscience. … So I’m voting no.”

At that point, Michael Poliakoff, one of the committee members who was pushing for denial of recognition, had to leave the meeting. Had the committee voted on the 12-month extension again and the remaining members didn’t change their positions, Blum’s proposal would have passed.

Instead of voting, Greene called for a 10-minute break. And when the committee returned, one of the members who voted against Blum’s proposal motioned to table the discussion for the day. That motion passed 8 to 7.

It is unclear when or if the discussion will continue tomorrow, as the NACIQI agenda includes reviewing petitions from five other accreditation agencies. (When representatives from the ABA accreditation council asked when they needed to return to the meeting Thursday, department officials and the committee chairman said they did not immediately know.)

If NACIQI does return to ABA, Blum won’t be in attendance to support her proposal. So, unless someone who voted against the extension Wednesday flipped sides, her proposal would fail 7 to 8 and Eitel’s proposal to deny recognition would win 8 to 7. That’s assuming the committee takes up the same proposals and only Blum is absent.

Throughout the day, several committee members sought to direct attention away from the council’s alleged failure to strike DEI standards on time. Several said they wanted to stay away from the more political aspects of the debate. What the decision came down to was whether the lack of independence caused enough harm to justify a full denial of recognition.

Some, like Eitel, say yes. Twenty years ago under the Bush administration, many of these same questions were being discussed, he explained. So “something tells me that if we don’t act today, we’re going to be right back in the same boat a year from now, five years from now … 20 years from now.”

But others, like Zakiya Smith Ellis, who was appointed by Senate Democrats, say that NACIQI’s job is to ensure there are quality accreditors deciding which institutions get federal aid. And Ellis isn’t certain denying the council recognition is the best way to do that.

“I’m really struggling to see what the big harm is right now to students from the American Bar Association,” she said. “I understand the procedural concerns. … I get that. But I’m trying to figure out who is being harmed right now by this and what ways we think that harm is so substantial that their recognition needs to be denied.”