[House Report 118-467]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


118th Congress  }                                               {  Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 2d Session     }                                               { 118-467

======================================================================



 
            ACCREDITATION FOR COLLEGE EXCELLENCE ACT OF 2023

                                _______
                                

 April 23, 2024.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Ms. Foxx, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce, submitted 
                             the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                             MINORITY VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 3724]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was 
referred the bill (H.R. 3724) to amend the Higher Education Act 
of 1965 to prohibit recognized accrediting agencies and 
associations from requiring, encouraging, or coercing 
institutions of higher education to meet any political litmus 
test or violate any right protected by the Constitution as a 
condition of accreditation, having considered the same, reports 
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends that the 
bill as amended do pass.
    The amendment is as follows:
  Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the 
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

  This Act may be cited as the ``Accreditation for College Excellence 
Act of 2023''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON POLITICAL LITMUS TESTS IN ACCREDITATION OF 
                    INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION.

  (a) Operating Procedures Required.--Section 496(c) of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099b(c)) is amended--
          (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (8);
          (2) in paragraph (9), by striking the period at the end and 
        inserting ``; and''; and
          (3) by adding at the end the following:
          ``(10) confirms that the standards for accreditation of the 
        agency or association do not--
                  ``(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B)--
                          ``(i) require, encourage, or coerce any 
                        institution to--
                                  ``(I) support, oppose, or commit to 
                                supporting or opposing--
                                          ``(aa) a specific partisan, 
                                        political, or ideological 
                                        viewpoint or belief or set of 
                                        such viewpoints or beliefs; or
                                          ``(bb) a a specific viewpoint 
                                        or belief or set of viewpoints 
                                        or beliefs on social, cultural, 
                                        or political issues; or
                                  ``(II) support or commit to 
                                supporting the disparate treatment of 
                                any individual or group of individuals 
                                on the basis of any protected class 
                                under Federal civil rights law, except 
                                as required by Federal law or a court 
                                order; or
                          ``(ii) assess an institution's or program of 
                        study's commitment to any ideology, belief, or 
                        viewpoint;
                  ``(B) prohibit an institution--
                          ``(i) from having a religious mission, 
                        operating as a religious institution, or being 
                        controlled by a religious organization (in a 
                        manner described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), 
                        (4), (5), or (6) of section 106.12(c) of title 
                        34, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect 
                        on the date of the enactment of this 
                        paragraph)), or from requiring an applicant, 
                        student, employee, or independent contractor 
                        (such as an adjunct professor) of such an 
                        institution to--
                                  ``(I) provide or adhere to a 
                                statement of faith; or
                                  ``(II) adhere to a code of conduct 
                                consistent with the stated religious 
                                mission of such institution or the 
                                religious tenets of such organization; 
                                or
                          ``(ii) from requiring an applicant, student, 
                        employee, or contractor to take an oath to 
                        uphold the Constitution of the United States; 
                        or
                  ``(C) require, encourage, or coerce an institution of 
                higher education to violate any right protected by the 
                Constitution.''.
  (b) Limitation on Scope of Criteria.--Section 496(g) of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1099b(g)) is amended to read as 
follows:
  ``(g) Limitation on Scope of Criteria.--
          ``(1) In general.--The Secretary shall not establish criteria 
        for accrediting agencies or associations that are not required 
        by this section.
          ``(2) Institutional eligibility.--An institution of higher 
        education shall be eligible for participation in programs under 
        this title if the institution is in compliance with the 
        standards of its accrediting agency or association that assess 
        the institution in accordance with subsection (a)(5), 
        regardless of any additional standards adopted by the agency or 
        association for purposes unrelated to participation in programs 
        under this title.''.

                                Purpose

    H.R. 3724 amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 to 
prohibit recognized accrediting agencies and associations from 
requiring, encouraging, or coercing institutions of higher 
education to meet any political litmus test or violate any 
right protected by the Constitution as a condition of 
accreditation.

                            Committee Action


                             115TH CONGRESS

Second Session--Hearings

    On April 27, 2017, the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce held a hearing on ``Strengthening Accreditation to 
Better Protect Students and Taxpayers.'' The purpose of the 
hearing was to review the concerns that the current 
accreditation system is no longer focused on ensuring a high-
quality education experience and examine ways to strengthen its 
mechanics to provide accountability for both students and 
taxpayers. Testifying before the Committee were Dr. Mary Ellen 
Petrisko, President, WASC Senior College and University 
Commission, Alameda, CA; Dr. George A. Pruitt, President, 
Thomas Edison State University, Trenton, NJ; Mr. Ben Miller, 
Senior Director for Postsecondary Education, Center for 
American Progress, Washington, D.C.; and Dr. Michale S. 
McComis, Executive Director, Accrediting Commission of Career 
Schools and Colleges, Arlington, VA.

                             116TH CONGRESS

Second Session--Hearings

    On April 3, 2019, the Committee's Higher Education and 
Workforce Investment Subcommittee held a hearing on 
``Strengthening Accountability in Higher Education to Better 
Serve Students and Taxpayers.'' The purpose of the hearing was 
to review the triad accountability system of higher education, 
of which accrediting agencies and associations compromise one-
third of the entities responsible for holding institutions 
accountable to students and taxpayers. Testifying before the 
Committee were Dr. Nicholas Hillman, Associate Professor of 
Education Leadership and Policy Analysis, University of 
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI; Ms. Melissa Emrey-Arras, 
Director of Education, Workforce, and Income Security, United 
States Government Accountability Office, Washington D.C.; Mr. 
Noe Ortega, Deputy Secretary of the Office of Postsecondary and 
Higher Education, Pennsylvania Department of Education, 
Harrisburg, PA; and Dr. Barbara Brittingham, President, New 
England Commission of Higher Education, Wakefield, MA.

                             118TH CONGRESS

First Session--Hearings

    On July 27, 2023, the Committee's Higher Education and 
Workforce Development Subcommittee held a hearing on ``Lowering 
Costs and Increasing Value for Students, Institutions, and 
Taxpayers.'' The purpose of the hearing was to discuss with 
policy experts the root causes of student debt and how to lower 
the cost of college through reforms to the postsecondary 
education accountability system, including reforms to the 
accreditation system that prioritize academics over a social 
justice agenda. Testifying before the Subcommittee were Mr. 
Michael B. Horn, Author and Co-Founder of the Clayton 
Christensen Institute for Disruptive Innovation, Lexington, MA; 
Mr. Stig Leschly, President and Founder, Postsecondary 
Commission, Boston, MA; Dr. Stephanie Cellini, Professor of 
Public Policy and Public Administration, and of Economics, 
George Washington University, Washington, D.C.; and Dr. Andrew 
Gillen, Senior Policy Analyst, Texas Public Policy Foundation, 
Austin, TX.

Second Session--Hearings

    On March 7, 2024, the Committee's Higher Education and 
Workforce Development Subcommittee held a hearing on 
``Divisive, Excessive, Ineffective: The Real Impact of DEI on 
College Campuses.'' The purpose of the hearing was to examine 
ways in which institutions and accreditors are engaging in 
harmful diversity, equity, and inclusion practices (DEI), 
including accreditors with DEI-based standards that 
institutions are obligated to meet. Testifying before the 
Subcommittee were Dr. Erec Smith, Associate Professor of 
Rhetoric, York College of Pennsylvania, Cato Research Fellow, 
York, PA; Dr. James Murphy, Director of Career Pathways and 
Post-Secondary Policy, Education Reform Now, Washington, D.C.; 
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, Chair, Do No Harm, Bryn Mawr, PA; and Dr. 
Jay Greene, Senior Research Fellow, The Heritage Foundation's 
Center for Education Policy, Fayetteville, AK.

Legislative Action

    On May 25, 2023, Higher Education and Workforce Development 
Subcommittee Chairman Burgess Owens (R-UT) introduced the 
Accreditation for College Excellence (ACE) Act of 2023 (H.R. 
3724) with Representatives Brandon Williams (R-NY), Byron 
Donalds (R-FL), and Erin Houchin (R-IN). The bill was referred 
solely to the Committee on Education and the Workforce. On 
March 21, 2024, the Committee considered H.R. 3724 in 
legislative session and reported it favorably, as amended, to 
the House of Representatives by a recorded vote of 24-14. The 
Committee considered the following amendments to H.R. 3724:
          1. Representative Owens offered an Amendment in the 
        Nature of a Substitute (ANS) that makes technical 
        changes to the text to align the language more closely 
        to the same prohibition included in the text of H.R. 
        6951, the College Cost Reduction Act, which the 
        Committee passed on January 31, 2024. The amendment was 
        adopted by voice vote.
          2. Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) offered an 
        amendment to require religious institutions that seek a 
        core curricula exemption from their accreditor to 
        publish a description of the request and final 
        determination by the accreditor. The amendment failed 
        by a recorded vote of 14-23.

                            Committee Views


                              INTRODUCTION

    Accrediting agencies or associations (accreditors) that 
force institutions to subscribe to certain partisan beliefs or 
viewpoints, such as DEI, quash academic freedom and therefore 
are antithetical to American exceptionalism. Further, the 
prevalence of DEI-based standards is concerning at a time when 
the value of a degree has decreased\1\ and the cost of college 
has increased.\2\ Accreditors that require colleges to adopt 
DEI initiatives are forcing colleges to make the DEI 
bureaucracy a priority instead of lowering college costs for 
students and taxpayers. H.R. 3724, the Accreditation for 
College Excellence Act, would allow institutions to regain 
academic freedom by prohibiting accreditors from requiring 
institutions to meet partisan and ideological litmus tests to 
receive accreditation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\https://freopp.org/is-college-worth-it-a-comprehensive-return-
on-investment-analysis-1b2ad17f84c8.
    \2\https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/college-tuition-and-fees-up-4-
7-percent-since-february-2020.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            TODAY'S IDEOLOGY

    There is no one definition of DEI. Rather, DEI is a 
framework of practices that has ideological roots in neo-
Marxist theory that attribute virtually all group differences 
to systemic discrimination.\3\ These practices are grounded in 
``critical race theory'' (CRT), which is a legal framework 
developed in the 1970s and 1980s\4\ that argues that racism is 
always subconsciously occurring and impacting society, even if 
it does not exist in the law. The CRT movement has spread 
beyond the legal field to become an activist crusade that 
questions and seeks to change mainstream institutions. Kimberle 
Crenshaw, the theorist who coined the term CRT, has called for 
the creation of a ``counter-hegemony'' to challenge traditional 
liberalism.\5\ On its surface, DEI seems to promote values that 
all people would agree with, but in practice modern DEI works 
against the definitions of its own values of ``diversity,'' 
``equity,'' and ``inclusion'' by prioritizing certain groups 
over others. DEI argues that, regardless of equal treatment 
under the law, discrimination always will be present within 
society due to power struggles between social groups. According 
to DEI in its current form, inequality of outcome is 
discrimination; therefore, inequality of outcome must be 
prevented to be sure that discrimination has been truly 
addressed. Further, merit, fairness, and equality under law are 
insufficient to remedy this inequality of outcomes, so equal 
opportunity is abandoned for favored treatment of certain 
groups so as to achieve the desired equal outcomes. 
Fundamentally, modern DEI divides individuals into groups based 
on stereotyped social constructs and treats them according to 
their group identity rather than as autonomous agents with the 
freedom to make their own choices and shape their own lives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\https://thehill.com/opinion/education/3718803-what-do-we-really-
mean-by-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/.
    \4\https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-
and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05.
    \5\https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Prohibit-
Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion-Statements.pdf?x91208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Unfortunately, postsecondary education has embraced Marxist 
ideology through DEI, to inform many aspects of university 
life. Beyond problems with Marxist theory itself, more 
generally no partisan viewpoints or ideologies should ever be 
taken as a framework for postsecondary education. Universities 
should be marketplaces for all ideas, and this is undermined by 
the embrace of any one ideological framework.
    There are multiple ways in which DEI has manifested in 
postsecondary education. First, standardized tests, and 
universities' use of them as evaluative measures, have been 
criticized by DEI proponents as being ``inequitable'' due to 
different student outcomes. The National Education Association 
described standardized tests as ``instruments of racism and a 
biased system.''\6\ Advocate group FairTest says that 
standardized testing poses ``racial, class, gender, and 
cultural barriers''\7\ and as a result reports that over 2,000 
U.S. colleges are now test-optional or test-free when it comes 
to SAT or ACT scores. To fight supposed ``systemic racism,'' at 
least 40 medical institutions have dropped the requirement that 
all applicants take the MCAT.\8\ Arguments against standardized 
testing embody DEI's framework for outcomes. Standardized 
tests, by nature, ask all students the same questions 
regardless of their diverse background, objectively evaluating 
the individual's ability without consideration of their race, 
gender, or socioeconomic class. To DEI advocates, however, 
standardized tests are designed to target certain social 
groups. Rather than seeing difference of outcome as a sign of 
individual capability, DEI advocates see it as symptomatic of a 
system of oppression, again focusing on the group rather than 
the individual. Despite these criticisms of standardized tests, 
some universities that were previously test-optional have 
recently announced a return to standardized tests because they 
recognize that eliminating standardized tests can have the 
opposite effect. In announcing its decision, Dartmouth said, 
``SAT/ACTs can be especially helpful in identifying students 
from less-resourced backgrounds who would succeed at Dartmouth 
but might otherwise be missed in a test-optional 
environment.''\9\ In other words, DEI values ultimately 
undermine the very individuals it purports to help, reducing 
them to victims of circumstance and members of a monolithic 
group rather than as individuals with potential.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/racist-
beginnings-standardized-testing.
    \7\https://fairtest.org/about/.
    \8\https://breakpoint.org/medical-education-infected-with-dei/.
    \9\https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4458907-the-days-of-
optional-sat-scores-may-be-coming-to-an-end/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A further effect of DEI on postsecondary education can be 
seen in changing tenure standards. The American Association of 
University Professors found that over 20 percent of 
institutions responding to a recent survey said they include 
DEI criteria in their tenure standards and another almost 40 
percent reported they are considering adding them.\10\ These 
DEI statements are not simple ``anti-discrimination'' 
statements but rather are coerced commitments to a larger 
ideology. Further, a 2021 American Enterprise Institute report 
found that one out of every five American professors is hired 
based on his or her commitment to the principles of DEI instead 
of on his or her merit.\11\ Conformity toward any ideology is 
directly at odds with the principles of academic freedom, and 
it is troubling that increasingly tenure is being granted not 
solely based on the academic and teaching excellence of 
professors but rather based on their commitment to an ideology. 
This proliferation of DEI administrators places importance on 
adherence to a social and ideological movement rather than on 
education and serving students.\12\ Although DEI costs 
significant resources, there is very little evidence such 
efforts help students.\13\ What there is evidence of is the 
rising cost of college.\14\ Every dollar a university puts into 
a DEI administrator hire is a dollar a university is not 
putting toward faculty devoted to core curriculum, direct 
student resources, or lowering tuition for students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\https://www.aaup.org/file/
2022_AAUP_Survey_of_Tenure_Practices.pdf.
    \11\https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/other-than-merit-
the-prevalence-of-diversity- equity-and-inclusion-statements-in-
university-hiring/.
    \12\https://www.heritage.org/education/report/diversity-university-
dei-bloat-the-academy.
    \13\https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/dei-doesnt-work-
taxpayers-shouldnt-pay-it.
    \14\https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2023/college-tuition-and-fees-up-
4-7-percent-since-february-2020.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another effect of DEI on universities is the ballooning of 
administrative positions and resources dedicated to DEI 
initiatives. These DEI offices and staff at universities share 
similarly vague mission statements but seem to have little 
practical impact on student success outcomes.\15\ The 2021 
report Diversity University: DEI Bloat in the Academy found 
that large public universities averaged 45 DEI personnel, with 
some institutions well surpassing that number: the University 
of Michigan had 163 DEI staff, the University of Virginia and 
the Ohio State University each had 94 DEI staff, and Virginia 
Tech, the University of California Berkley, Stanford 
University, the University of Illinois, and the University of 
Maryland all had between 70 and 90 DEI personnel on campus.\16\ 
This hiring spree of DEI administrators further injures 
students by deprioritizing hiring for other chronically 
understaffed departments and offices. For example, the 
University of Michigan has roughly 14 DEI staff for every one 
person providing services to students with disabilities.\17\ An 
updated 2024 analysis of the University of Michigan's DEI 
office found there to be 241 paid DEI employees and that 
payroll costs for those employees exceeding $30 million 
annually.\18\ To put that amount in context, with that same 
amount the University could instead cover in-state tuition for 
over 1,700 undergraduate students. Further, DEI officers are 
often paid at significantly higher rates than professors. For 
example, the university's Chief Diversity Administrator has a 
salary of $402,800, over two times the average salary of a 
professor.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\https://www.heritage.org/education/report/diversity-university-
dei-bloat-the-academy.
    \16\Ibid.
    \17\Ibid.
    \18\https://www.thecollegefix.com/umich-now-has-more-than-500-jobs-
dedicated-to-dei-payroll-costs-exceed-30-million/. The institution 
disputes the total number because some faculty are part-time and have 
other responsibilities at the institution.
    \19\Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           ACCREDITORS' ROLE

    Accreditation is a non-governmental peer review process 
created by colleges and universities to review and improve the 
academic quality of postsecondary institutions and programs. 
Accreditors are voluntary, private organizations composed of 
members from accredited schools. The postsecondary 
accreditation system predates the Higher Education Act of 1965 
(HEA), but within the HEA Congress required institutions to be 
accredited by a nationally recognized accrediting agency or 
association as a condition of receiving federal funding.\20\ In 
order for an accreditor to assess institution quality for the 
purposes of HEA funding, the accreditor must first be 
recognized by the Department of Education (ED). Section 496 of 
the HEA outlines the operating procedures accreditors must meet 
before they can be a recognized accreditor.\21\ H.R. 3724 
amends section 496(c) of the HEA to specifically require that 
an accreditor confirm it has no standards in place to require, 
encourage, or coerce an institution to support or oppose a 
partisan or ideological litmus test. Additionally, accreditors 
that wish to be recognized must renew recognition every five 
years. Therefore, H.R. 3724 will ensure that accreditors 
regularly confirm that no litmus test standards exist before 
recognition is renewed, providing ongoing protection from 
future attempts to push ideological standards on institutions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\Higher Education Act of 1965, Pub. L. No. 89-329, Sec. 801.
    \21\HEA Section 496(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 496 also outlines the process which institutions 
must undergo to be recognized by an accreditor and the 
requirements accreditors may hold institutions to maintain 
their accreditation status. Accreditation of colleges and 
universities generally serves the following two purposes: 
assuring quality and fostering continuous improvement. The 
federal government and the public rely on accreditation as a 
signal that an accredited institution meets at least a minimum 
standard of quality and that federal funds are flowing only to 
credible, legitimate, and high-quality institutions. 
Conversely, colleges and universities use the accreditation 
process as a way to help shape and guide the continuous 
improvement of their institutions and academic programs. There 
are 10 statutory standards of accreditation that are most 
commonly referenced when discussing what the law requires 
accreditors to consider and require institutions to measure 
themselves against. Accreditors, in coordination with their 
member institutions, develop criteria around the required 
statutory standards. To gain accreditation, an institution or 
program must be evaluated through a number of steps outlined by 
an accreditor. These procedures are guided, in part, by the 
federal requirements in the HEA and by regulation; however, the 
specific procedures for evaluation reviews adopted by 
accreditation agencies vary by agency. Importantly, section 
496(g) of the HEA also includes an ``elastic clause'' that 
allows accreditors to impose additional conditions for HEA 
Title IV eligibility.\22\ This provision has allowed 
accreditors to impose many additional requirements on 
institutions and is the authority that accreditors can assert 
to create additional litmus test standards for institutions. 
H.R. 3724 would close this loophole and confirm that neither 
the Secretary nor the accreditor can require additional 
standards for institutions to receive Title IV federal 
financial aid not otherwise outlined in statute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\Section 496(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

           DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION IN ACCREDITATION

    Colleges and universities are not the only postsecondary 
education entities that push a required commitment to a 
partisan ideology or viewpoint. Accreditors have begun 
including a commitment to DEI as a required standard for 
accreditation.\23\ For example, one of the largest formerly 
regional accreditors, the Western Association for Schools and 
Colleges, Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), 
includes in its standard for all institutions to develop their 
institutional mission a requirement that the mission ``makes 
explicit commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion.''\24\ 
This is not an isolated instance: the only formerly regional 
accreditor that does not have an explicit standard requiring 
commitment to DEI is the Southern Association of Colleges and 
Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSOC). But even SACSOC does 
have a position statement supporting institutions that may want 
to adopt DEI-based activities.\25\ Most concerning of all is 
the extension of this new DEI priority to medical schools. The 
Liaison Committee on Medical Education, a programmatic 
accreditor, has been measuring the success of a medical school 
by the identity of the faculty hired and whether or not the 
medical school also requires the same type of identity-only 
diversity of its student applicants.\26\ Standards such as this 
should be scrutinized for the potential of racial 
discrimination. While accreditors are self-governing 
organizations in which standards are often adopted through a 
participatory process involving input from the institution 
members as a form of self-regulation, accreditors and member 
institutions are still promoting a forced commitment to 
ideologies like DEI, and any opposition to the adoption of 
these standards is likely chilled or dismissed as a minority 
view.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-new-accountability.
    \24\https://www.wscuc.org/handbook2023/#standards-of-accreditation.
    \25\https://sacscoc.org/app/uploads/2019/08/DiversityStatement.pdf.
    \26\https://www.bcm.edu/about-us/community-engagement-health-
equity/equity-and-inclusion-policies/accreditation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another example of conformity to the DEI agenda is found 
throughout the accreditation hierarchy. The Council for Higher 
Education Accreditation (CHEA) is a non-profit membership 
organization of institutions and accreditors that has a 
commitment to DEI. In CHEA's standards for accreditation 
structure and organization, CHEA states that a recognized 
accrediting organization should demonstrate that it manifests a 
commitment to DEI. An example of such a commitment is the 
inclusion of a value statement regarding DEI in an 
institution's official mission statement and evidence of 
integration of DEI in policies and procedures.\27\ In order to 
be recognized by CHEA, an accreditor must meet this standard. 
CHEA currently recognizes approximately 60 accreditors.\28\ 
With CHEA's influence, it is easy to understand how many 
accreditors and thus institutions now are holding themselves to 
DEI-based standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\https://www.chea.org/sites/default/files/other-content/
CHEA_Standards_and_Procedures_for _Recognition-FINAL.pdf.
    \28\https://www.chea.org/about-recognition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Because accreditors play such a prominent role in the 
adoption of an ideological framework in postsecondary 
education, H.R. 3724 rightly stops accreditors from continuing 
to proliferate standards that require institutions to adopt or 
commit to support or oppose any partisan, political, 
ideological viewpoint or belief. H.R. 3724 also requires an 
accreditor to confirm it does not have standards in place that 
would cause an institution to support the disparate treatment 
of any protected class. H.R. 3724 would provide appropriate 
protections for religious institutions to be able to adhere to 
their religious tenets. It is troubling that accreditors have 
become enforcers of institutions' DEI standards but have not 
made more progress in holding institutions accountable for 
producing workforce-ready graduates. H.R. 3724 rejects 
ideological and partisan agendas from being embedded into 
postsecondary education and returns a focus on academic quality 
to postsecondary education.

                               Conclusion

    At every level of postsecondary education, administratively 
powerful entities, such as institutions, accreditors, and large 
postsecondary membership bodies that advise on accreditation, 
have committed to and are coercing other postsecondary 
institutions into adopting non-academic agendas, like DEI-based 
standards or programs. The DEI Marxist framework should not be 
forced on any institution. Partisan ideologies have no place in 
postsecondary education, and H.R. 3724 would protect and 
promote a return to academics instead of conformity to ideology 
as a priority for universities and accreditors.

                                Summary


                  H.R. 3724 SECTION-BY-SECTION SUMMARY

    The Accreditation for College Excellence (ACE) Act, 
introduced by Representative Owens, prohibits accreditors from 
mandating that institutions adopt DEI standards in order to 
receive accreditation. Specifically, the ACE Act:

Section 1--Short title

           Accreditation for College Excellence Act of 
        2023

Section 2--Prohibition on political litmus tests in accreditation of 
        institutions of higher education

           Requires an accreditor to confirm that 
        standards do not require, encourage, or coerce an 
        institution to support or oppose specific partisan or 
        political beliefs or viewpoints on social or political 
        issues or to support the disparate treatment of any 
        individual or group;
           Requires an accreditor to confirm that it 
        does not assess an institution's commitment to any 
        ideology, belief, or viewpoint for the purposes of 
        receiving accreditation for HEA funding;
           Requires an accreditor to confirm that its 
        standards do not prohibit an institution from having a 
        religious mission and ability to require adherence with 
        religious practices or codes of conduct;
           Ensures that an accreditor cannot require, 
        encourage, or coerce an institution to violate any 
        right protected by the Constitution; and
           Closes the ``elastic clause'' loophole and 
        limits accreditors from requiring institutions to adopt 
        any additional standards for accreditation to receive 
        HEA funding.

                       Explanation of Amendments

    The amendments, including the amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, are explained in the body of this report.

            Application of the Law to the Legislative Branch

    Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a 
description of the application of this bill to the legislative 
branch. H.R. 3724 prohibits accrediting agencies from 
requiring, encouraging, or coercing institutions of higher 
education to meet political litmus tests or violate 
constitutional rights as a condition of accreditation, and 
therefore does not apply to the Legislative Branch.

                       Unfunded Mandate Statement

    Pursuant to Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and 
Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Public Law No. 93-344 (as 
amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995, Public Law No. 104-4), the Committee adopts as its 
own the cost estimate prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) pursuant to section 402 of 
the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

                           Earmark Statement

    H.R. 3724 does not contain any congressional earmarks, 
limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in 
clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

                            Roll Call Votes

    Clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires the Committee Report to include for 
each record vote on a motion to report the measure or matter 
and on any amendments offered to the measure or matter the 
total number of votes for and against and the names of the 
Members voting for and against.


         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

    In accordance with clause (3)(c) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives, the goal of H.R. 3724 is to 
prohibit recognized accrediting agencies and associations from 
requiring or encouraging institutions of higher education to 
meet political litmus tests or violate rights protected under 
the Constitution as a condition of accreditation.

                    Duplication of Federal Programs

    No provision of H.R. 3724 establishes or reauthorizes a 
program of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of 
another Federal program, a program that was included in any 
report from the Government Accountability Office to Congress 
pursuant to section 21 of Public Law 111-139, or a program 
related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of 
Federal Domestic Assistance.

  Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause 
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, 
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are 
reflected in the body of this report.

                       Required Committee Hearing

    In compliance with clause 3(c)(6) of rule XIII of the Rules 
of the House of Representatives the following hearing held 
during the 118th Congress was used to develop or consider H.R. 
3724: On March 29, 2023, the Subcommittee on Higher Education 
and Workforce Development held a hearing entitled, ``Diversity 
of Thought: Protecting Free Speech on College Campuses.''

               New Budget Authority and CBO Cost Estimate

    With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule 
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect 
to requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives and section 402 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has received 
the following estimate for H.R. 3724 from the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office:




    H.R. 3724 would prohibit accrediting agencies from 
requiring institutions of higher education to support or oppose 
certain political or ideological beliefs as a criterion for 
accreditation. The bill also would prevent those agencies from 
denying accreditation to an institution of higher education 
based on that institution's religious mission.
    Accrediting agencies are private educational associations 
that develop evaluation criteria and conduct peer evaluations 
to assess whether institutions of higher education meet those 
criteria. Generally, institutions must meet those criteria to 
be accredited, and thus be eligible to participate in the 
federal student aid programs.
    In CBO's current baseline projections, we do not expect any 
change in the number of schools that would be accredited with 
respect to the criteria that would be prohibited in the bill. 
On that basis, CBO estimates that enacting the bill would not 
affect federal spending or revenues.
    The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Margot Berman. 
The estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy 
Director of Budget Analysis.

                                         Phillip L. Swagel,
                             Director, Congressional Budget Office.

                        Committee Cost Estimate

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison of the 
costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 3400. 
However, clause 3(d)(2)(B) of that rule provides that this 
requirement does not apply when, as with the present report, 
the Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate of the bill 
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office 
under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

  In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no 
change is proposed is shown in roman):

                      HIGHER EDUCATION ACT OF 1965




           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
TITLE IV--STUDENT ASSISTANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



PART H--PROGRAM INTEGRITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               Subpart 2--Accrediting Agency Recognition

SEC. 496. RECOGNITION OF ACCREDITING AGENCY OR ASSOCIATION.

  (a) Criteria Required.--No accrediting agency or association 
may be determined by the Secretary to be a reliable authority 
as to the quality of education or training offered for the 
purposes of this Act or for other Federal purposes, unless the 
agency or association meets criteria established by the 
Secretary pursuant to this section. The Secretary shall, after 
notice and opportunity for a hearing, establish criteria for 
such determinations. Such criteria shall include an appropriate 
measure or measures of student achievement. Such criteria shall 
require that--
          (1) the accrediting agency or association shall be a 
        State, regional, or national agency or association and 
        shall demonstrate the ability and the experience to 
        operate as an accrediting agency or association within 
        the State, region, or nationally, as appropriate;
          (2) such agency or association--
                  (A)(i) for the purpose of participation in 
                programs under this Act, has a voluntary 
                membership of institutions of higher education 
                and has as a principal purpose the accrediting 
                of institutions of higher education; or
                  (ii) for the purpose of participation in 
                other programs administered by the Department 
                of Education or other Federal agencies, has a 
                voluntary membership and has as its principal 
                purpose the accrediting of institutions of 
                higher education or programs;
                  (B) is a State agency approved by the 
                Secretary for the purpose described in 
                subparagraph (A); or
                  (C) is an agency or association that, for the 
                purpose of determining eligibility for student 
                assistance under this title, conducts 
                accreditation through (i) a voluntary 
                membership organization of individuals 
                participating in a profession, or (ii) an 
                agency or association which has as its 
                principal purpose the accreditation of programs 
                within institutions, which institutions are 
                accredited by another agency or association 
                recognized by the Secretary;
          (3) if such agency or association is an agency or 
        association described in--
                  (A) subparagraph (A)(i) of paragraph (2), 
                then such agency or association is separate and 
                independent, both administratively and 
                financially of any related, associated, or 
                affiliated trade association or membership 
                organization;
                  (B) subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2), then 
                such agency or association has been recognized 
                by the Secretary on or before October 1, 1991; 
                or
                  (C) subparagraph (C) of paragraph (2) and 
                such agency or association has been recognized 
                by the Secretary on or before October 1, 1991, 
                then the Secretary may waive the requirement 
                that such agency or association is separate and 
                independent, both administratively and 
                financially of any related, associated, or 
                affiliated trade association or membership 
                organization upon a demonstration that the 
                existing relationship has not served to 
                compromise the independence of its 
                accreditation process;
          (4)(A) such agency or association consistently 
        applies and enforces standards that respect the stated 
        mission of the institution of higher education, 
        including religious missions, and that ensure that the 
        courses or programs of instruction, training, or study 
        offered by the institution of higher education, 
        including distance education or correspondence courses 
        or programs, are of sufficient quality to achieve, for 
        the duration of the accreditation period, the stated 
        objective for which the courses or the programs are 
        offered; and
          (B) if such agency or association has or seeks to 
        include within its scope of recognition the evaluation 
        of the quality of institutions or programs offering 
        distance education or correspondence education, such 
        agency or association shall, in addition to meeting the 
        other requirements of this subpart, demonstrate to the 
        Secretary that--
                  (i) the agency or association's standards 
                effectively address the quality of an 
                institution's distance education or 
                correspondence education in the areas 
                identified in paragraph (5), except that--
                          (I) the agency or association shall 
                        not be required to have separate 
                        standards, procedures, or policies for 
                        the evaluation of distance education or 
                        correspondence education institutions 
                        or programs in order to meet the 
                        requirements of this subparagraph; and
                          (II) in the case that the agency or 
                        association is recognized by the 
                        Secretary, the agency or association 
                        shall not be required to obtain the 
                        approval of the Secretary to expand its 
                        scope of accreditation to include 
                        distance education or correspondence 
                        education, provided that the agency or 
                        association notifies the Secretary in 
                        writing of the change in scope; and
                  (ii) the agency or association requires an 
                institution that offers distance education or 
                correspondence education to have processes 
                through which the institution establishes that 
                the student who registers in a distance 
                education or correspondence education course or 
                program is the same student who participates in 
                and completes the program and receives the 
                academic credit;
          (5) the standards for accreditation of the agency or 
        association assess the institution's--
                  (A) success with respect to student 
                achievement in relation to the institution's 
                mission, which may include different standards 
                for different institutions or programs, as 
                established by the institution, including, as 
                appropriate, consideration of State licensing 
                examinations, consideration of course 
                completion, and job placement rates;
                  (B) curricula;
                  (C) faculty;
                  (D) facilities, equipment, and supplies;
                  (E) fiscal and administrative capacity as 
                appropriate to the specified scale of 
                operations;
                  (F) student support services;
                  (G) recruiting and admissions practices, 
                academic calendars, catalogs, publications, 
                grading and advertising;
                  (H) measures of program length and the 
                objectives of the degrees or credentials 
                offered;
                  (I) record of student complaints received by, 
                or available to, the agency or association; and
                  (J) record of compliance with its program 
                responsibilities under title IV of this Act 
                based on the most recent student loan default 
                rate data provided by the Secretary, the 
                results of financial or compliance audits, 
                program reviews, and any such other information 
                as the Secretary may provide to the agency or 
                association;
        except that subparagraphs (A), (H), and (J) shall not 
        apply to agencies or associations described in 
        paragraph (2)(A)(ii) of this subsection;
          (6) such an agency or association shall establish and 
        apply review procedures throughout the accrediting 
        process, including evaluation and withdrawal 
        proceedings, which comply with due process procedures 
        that provide--
                  (A) for adequate written specification of--
                          (i) requirements, including clear 
                        standards for an institution of higher 
                        education or program to be accredited; 
                        and
                          (ii) identified deficiencies at the 
                        institution or program examined;
                  (B) for sufficient opportunity for a written 
                response, by an institution or program, 
                regarding any deficiencies identified by the 
                agency or association to be considered by the 
                agency or association--
                          (i) within a timeframe determined by 
                        the agency or association; and
                          (ii) prior to final action in the 
                        evaluation and withdrawal proceedings;
                  (C) upon the written request of an 
                institution or program, for an opportunity for 
                the institution or program to appeal any 
                adverse action under this section, including 
                denial, withdrawal, suspension, or termination 
                of accreditation, taken against the institution 
                or program, prior to such action becoming final 
                at a hearing before an appeals panel that--
                          (i) shall not include current members 
                        of the agency's or association's 
                        underlying decisionmaking body that 
                        made the adverse decision; and
                          (ii) is subject to a conflict of 
                        interest policy;
                  (D) for the right to representation and 
                participation by counsel for an institution or 
                program during an appeal of the adverse action;
                  (E) for a process, in accordance with written 
                procedures developed by the agency or 
                association, through which an institution or 
                program, before a final adverse action based 
                solely upon a failure to meet a standard or 
                criterion pertaining to finances, may on one 
                occasion seek review of significant financial 
                information that was unavailable to the 
                institution or program prior to the 
                determination of the adverse action, and that 
                bears materially on the financial deficiencies 
                identified by the agency or association;
                  (F) in the case that the agency or 
                association determines that the new financial 
                information submitted by the institution or 
                program under subparagraph (E) meets the 
                criteria of significance and materiality 
                described in such subparagraph, for 
                consideration by the agency or association of 
                the new financial information prior to the 
                adverse action described in such subparagraph 
                becoming final; and
                  (G) that any determination by the agency or 
                association made with respect to the new 
                financial information described in subparagraph 
                (E) shall not be separately appealable by the 
                institution or program;
          (7) such agency or association shall notify the 
        Secretary and the appropriate State licensing or 
        authorizing agency within 30 days of the accreditation 
        of an institution or any final denial, withdrawal, 
        suspension, or termination of accreditation or 
        placement on probation of an institution, together with 
        any other adverse action taken with respect to an 
        institution; and
          (8) such agency or association shall make available 
        to the public, upon request, and to the Secretary, and 
        the State licensing or authorizing agency a summary of 
        any review resulting in a final accrediting decision 
        involving denial, termination, or suspension of 
        accreditation, together with the comments of the 
        affected institution.
  (b) Separate and Independent Defined.--For the purpose of 
subsection (a)(3), the term ``separate and independent'' means 
that--
          (1) the members of the postsecondary education 
        governing body of the accrediting agency or association 
        are not elected or selected by the board or chief 
        executive officer of any related, associated, or 
        affiliated trade association or membership 
        organization;
          (2) among the membership of the board of the 
        accrediting agency or association there shall be one 
        public member (who is not a member of any related trade 
        or membership organization) for each six members of the 
        board, with a minimum of one such public member, and 
        guidelines are established for such members to avoid 
        conflicts of interest;
          (3) dues to the accrediting agency or association are 
        paid separately from any dues paid to any related, 
        associated, or affiliated trade association or 
        membership organization; and
          (4) the budget of the accrediting agency or 
        association is developed and determined by the 
        accrediting agency or association without review or 
        resort to consultation with any other entity or 
        organization.
  (c) Operating Procedures Required.--No accrediting agency or 
association may be recognized by the Secretary as a reliable 
authority as to the quality of education or training offered by 
an institution seeking to participate in the programs 
authorized under this title, unless the agency or association--
          (1) performs, at regularly established intervals, on-
        site inspections and reviews of institutions of higher 
        education (which may include unannounced site visits) 
        with particular focus on educational quality and 
        program effectiveness, and ensures that accreditation 
        team members are well-trained and knowledgeable with 
        respect to their responsibilities, including those 
        regarding distance education;
          (2) monitors the growth of programs at institutions 
        that are experiencing significant enrollment growth;
          (3) requires an institution to submit for approval to 
        the accrediting agency a teach-out plan upon the 
        occurrence of any of the following events:
                  (A) the Department notifies the accrediting 
                agency of an action against the institution 
                pursuant to section 487(f);
                  (B) the accrediting agency acts to withdraw, 
                terminate, or suspend the accreditation of the 
                institution; or
                  (C) the institution notifies the accrediting 
                agency that the institution intends to cease 
                operations;
          (4) requires that any institution of higher education 
        subject to its jurisdiction which plans to establish a 
        branch campus submit a business plan, including 
        projected revenues and expenditures, prior to opening 
        the branch campus;
          (5) agrees to conduct, as soon as practicable, but 
        within a period of not more than 6 months of the 
        establishment of a new branch campus or a change of 
        ownership of an institution of higher education, an on-
        site visit of that branch campus or of the institution 
        after a change of ownership;
          (6) requires that teach-out agreements among 
        institutions are subject to approval by the accrediting 
        agency or association consistent with standards 
        promulgated by such agency or association;
          (7) makes available to the public and the State 
        licensing or authorizing agency, and submits to the 
        Secretary, a summary of agency or association actions, 
        including--
                  (A) the award of accreditation or 
                reaccreditation of an institution;
                  (B) final denial, withdrawal, suspension, or 
                termination of accreditation of an institution, 
                and any findings made in connection with the 
                action taken, together with the official 
                comments of the affected institution; and
                  (C) any other adverse action taken with 
                respect to an institution or placement on 
                probation of an institution;
          (8) discloses publicly whenever an institution of 
        higher education subject to its jurisdiction is being 
        considered for accreditation or reaccreditation; [and]
          (9) confirms, as a part of the agency's or 
        association's review for accreditation or 
        reaccreditation, that the institution has transfer of 
        credit policies--
                  (A) that are publicly disclosed; and
                  (B) that include a statement of the criteria 
                established by the institution regarding the 
                transfer of credit earned at another 
                institution of higher education[.]; and
          (10) confirms that the standards for accreditation of 
        the agency or association do not--
                  (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B)--
                          (i) require, encourage, or coerce any 
                        institution to--
                                  (I) support, oppose, or 
                                commit to supporting or 
                                opposing--
                                          (aa) a specific 
                                        partisan, political, or 
                                        ideological viewpoint 
                                        or belief or set of 
                                        such viewpoints or 
                                        beliefs; or
                                          (bb) a a specific 
                                        viewpoint or belief or 
                                        set of viewpoints or 
                                        beliefs on social, 
                                        cultural, or political 
                                        issues; or
                                  (II) support or commit to 
                                supporting the disparate 
                                treatment of any individual or 
                                group of individuals on the 
                                basis of any protected class 
                                under Federal civil rights law, 
                                except as required by Federal 
                                law or a court order; or
                          (ii) assess an institution's or 
                        program of study's commitment to any 
                        ideology, belief, or viewpoint;
                  (B) prohibit an institution--
                          (i) from having a religious mission, 
                        operating as a religious institution, 
                        or being controlled by a religious 
                        organization (in a manner described in 
                        paragraph (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), or 
                        (6) of section 106.12(c) of title 34, 
                        Code of Federal Regulations (as in 
                        effect on the date of the enactment of 
                        this paragraph)), or from requiring an 
                        applicant, student, employee, or 
                        independent contractor (such as an 
                        adjunct professor) of such an 
                        institution to--
                                  (I) provide or adhere to a 
                                statement of faith; or
                                  (II) adhere to a code of 
                                conduct consistent with the 
                                stated religious mission of 
                                such institution or the 
                                religious tenets of such 
                                organization; or
                          (ii) from requiring an applicant, 
                        student, employee, or contractor to 
                        take an oath to uphold the Constitution 
                        of the United States; or
                  (C) require, encourage, or coerce an 
                institution of higher education to violate any 
                right protected by the Constitution.
  (d) Length of Recognition.--No accrediting agency or 
association may be recognized by the Secretary for the purpose 
of this Act for a period of more than 5 years.
  (e) Initial Arbitration Rule.--The Secretary may not 
recognize the accreditation of any institution of higher 
education unless the institution of higher education agrees to 
submit any dispute involving the final denial, withdrawal, or 
termination of accreditation to initial arbitration prior to 
any other legal action.
  (f) Jurisdiction.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
law, any civil action brought by an institution of higher 
education seeking accreditation from, or accredited by, an 
accrediting agency or association recognized by the Secretary 
for the purpose of this title and involving the denial, 
withdrawal, or termination of accreditation of the institution 
of higher education, shall be brought in the appropriate United 
States district court.
  [(g) Limitation on Scope of Criteria.--Nothing in this Act 
shall be construed to permit the Secretary to establish 
criteria for accrediting agencies or associations that are not 
required by this section. Nothing in this Act shall be 
construed to prohibit or limit any accrediting agency or 
association from adopting additional standards not provided for 
in this section. Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
permit the Secretary to establish any criteria that specifies, 
defines, or prescribes the standards that accrediting agencies 
or associations shall use to assess any institution's success 
with respect to student achievement.]
  (g) Limitation on Scope of Criteria.--
          (1) In general.--The Secretary shall not establish 
        criteria for accrediting agencies or associations that 
        are not required by this section.
          (2) Institutional eligibility.--An institution of 
        higher education shall be eligible for participation in 
        programs under this title if the institution is in 
        compliance with the standards of its accrediting agency 
        or association that assess the institution in 
        accordance with subsection (a)(5), regardless of any 
        additional standards adopted by the agency or 
        association for purposes unrelated to participation in 
        programs under this title.
  (h) Change of Accrediting Agency.--The Secretary shall not 
recognize the accreditation of any otherwise eligible 
institution of higher education if the institution of higher 
education is in the process of changing its accrediting agency 
or association, unless the eligible institution submits to the 
Secretary all materials relating to the prior accreditation, 
including materials demonstrating reasonable cause for changing 
the accrediting agency or association.
  (i) Dual Accreditation Rule.--The Secretary shall not 
recognize the accreditation of any otherwise eligible 
institution of higher education if the institution of higher 
education is accredited, as an institution, by more than one 
accrediting agency or association, unless the institution 
submits to each such agency and association and to the 
Secretary the reasons for accreditation by more than one such 
agency or association and demonstrates to the Secretary 
reasonable cause for its accreditation by more than one agency 
or association. If the institution is accredited, as an 
institution, by more than one accrediting agency or 
association, the institution shall designate which agency's 
accreditation shall be utilized in determining the 
institution's eligibility for programs under this Act.
  (j) Impact of Loss of Accreditation.--An institution may not 
be certified or recertified as an institution of higher 
education under section 102 and subpart 3 of this part or 
participate in any of the other programs authorized by this Act 
if such institution--
          (1) is not currently accredited by any agency or 
        association recognized by the Secretary;
          (2) has had its accreditation withdrawn, revoked, or 
        otherwise terminated for cause during the preceding 24 
        months, unless such withdrawal, revocation, or 
        termination has been rescinded by the same accrediting 
        agency; or
          (3) has withdrawn from accreditation voluntarily 
        under a show cause or suspension order during the 
        preceding 24 months, unless such order has been 
        rescinded by the same accrediting agency.
  (k) Religious Institution Rule.--Notwithstanding subsection 
(j), the Secretary shall allow an institution that has had its 
accreditation withdrawn, revoked, or otherwise terminated, or 
has voluntarily withdrawn from an accreditation agency, to 
remain certified as an institution of higher education under 
section 102 and subpart 3 of this part for a period sufficient 
to allow such institution to obtain alternative accreditation, 
if the Secretary determines that the reason for the withdrawal, 
revocation, or termination--
          (1) is related to the religious mission or 
        affiliation of the institution; and
          (2) is not related to the accreditation criteria 
        provided for in this section.
  (l) Limitation, Suspension, or Termination of Recognition.--
(1) If the Secretary determines that an accrediting agency or 
association has failed to apply effectively the criteria in 
this section, or is otherwise not in compliance with the 
requirements of this section, the Secretary shall--
          (A) after notice and opportunity for a hearing, 
        limit, suspend, or terminate the recognition of the 
        agency or association; or
          (B) require the agency or association to take 
        appropriate action to bring the agency or association 
        into compliance with such requirements within a 
        timeframe specified by the Secretary, except that--
                  (i) such timeframe shall not exceed 12 months 
                unless the Secretary extends such period for 
                good cause; and
                  (ii) if the agency or association fails to 
                bring the agency or association into compliance 
                within such timeframe, the Secretary shall, 
                after notice and opportunity for a hearing, 
                limit, suspend, or terminate the recognition of 
                the agency or association.
  (2) The Secretary may determine that an accrediting agency or 
association has failed to apply effectively the standards 
provided in this section if an institution of higher education 
seeks and receives accreditation from the accrediting agency or 
association during any period in which the institution is the 
subject of any interim action by another accrediting agency or 
association, described in paragraph (2)(A)(i), (2)(B), or 
(2)(C) of subsection (a) of this section, leading to the 
suspension, revocation, or termination of accreditation or the 
institution has been notified of the threatened loss of 
accreditation, and the due process procedures required by such 
suspension, revocation, termination, or threatened loss have 
not been completed.
  (m) Limitation on the Secretary's Authority.--The Secretary 
may only recognize accrediting agencies or associations which 
accredit institutions of higher education for the purpose of 
enabling such institutions to establish eligibility to 
participate in the programs under this Act or which accredit 
institutions of higher education or higher education programs 
for the purpose of enabling them to establish eligibility to 
participate in other programs administered by the Department of 
Education or other Federal agencies.
  (n) Independent Evaluation.--(1) The Secretary shall conduct 
a comprehensive review and evaluation of the performance of all 
accrediting agencies or associations which seek recognition by 
the Secretary in order to determine whether such accrediting 
agencies or associations meet the criteria established by this 
section. The Secretary shall conduct an independent evaluation 
of the information provided by such agency or association. Such 
evaluation shall include--
          (A) the solicitation of third-party information 
        concerning the performance of the accrediting agency or 
        association; and
          (B) site visits, including unannounced site visits as 
        appropriate, at accrediting agencies and associations, 
        and, at the Secretary's discretion, at representative 
        member institutions.
  (2) The Secretary shall place a priority for review of 
accrediting agencies or associations on those agencies or 
associations that accredit institutions of higher education 
that participate most extensively in the programs authorized by 
this title and on those agencies or associations which have 
been the subject of the most complaints or legal actions.
  (3) The Secretary shall consider all available relevant 
information concerning the compliance of the accrediting agency 
or association with the criteria provided for in this section, 
including any complaints or legal actions against such agency 
or association. In cases where deficiencies in the performance 
of an accreditation agency or association with respect to the 
requirements of this section are noted, the Secretary shall 
take these deficiencies into account in the recognition 
process. The Secretary shall not, under any circumstances, base 
decisions on the recognition or denial of recognition of 
accreditation agencies or associations on criteria other than 
those contained in this section. When the Secretary decides to 
recognize an accrediting agency or association, the Secretary 
shall determine the agency or association's scope of 
recognition. If the agency or association reviews institutions 
offering distance education courses or programs and the 
Secretary determines that the agency or association meets the 
requirements of this section, then the agency shall be 
recognized and the scope of recognition shall include 
accreditation of institutions offering distance education 
courses or programs.
  (4) The Secretary shall maintain sufficient documentation to 
support the conclusions reached in the recognition process, 
and, if the Secretary does not recognize any accreditation 
agency or association, shall make publicly available the reason 
for denying recognition, including reference to the specific 
criteria under this section which have not been fulfilled.
  (o) Regulations.--The Secretary shall by regulation provide 
procedures for the recognition of accrediting agencies or 
associations and for the appeal of the Secretary's decisions. 
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary shall 
not promulgate any regulation with respect to the standards of 
an accreditation agency or association described in subsection 
(a)(5).
  (p) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in subsection (a)(5) shall 
be construed to restrict the ability of--
          (1) an accrediting agency or association to set, with 
        the involvement of its members, and to apply, 
        accreditation standards for or to institutions or 
        programs that seek review by the agency or association; 
        or
          (2) an institution to develop and use institutional 
        standards to show its success with respect to student 
        achievement, which achievement may be considered as 
        part of any accreditation review.
  (q) Review of Scope Changes.--The Secretary shall require a 
review, at the next available meeting of the National Advisory 
Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, of any change 
in scope undertaken by an agency or association under 
subsection (a)(4)(B)(i)(II) if the enrollment of an institution 
that offers distance education or correspondence education that 
is accredited by such agency or association increases by 50 
percent or more within any one institutional fiscal year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                             MINORITY VIEWS


                              INTRODUCTION

    H.R. 3724, the Accreditation for College Excellence Act of 
2023, amends the Higher Education Act of 1965 (HEA) in ways 
Committee Democrats firmly believe will lower the quality of 
higher education. The bill proposes changes to the standards 
under which accrediting bodies determine the quality of 
institutions of higher education. These changes are solutions 
in search of problems. The provisions in this bill are largely 
a rehash of proposals the Committee marked up earlier this 
session in H.R. 6951, the so-called College Cost Reduction Act, 
which the Committee passed on a party-line vote.\1\ They were 
bad policy then, and remain so now.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\The majority provided no rationale as to why they chose to mark 
up nearly identical language less than two months after its initial 
consideration by the Committee. However, the use of Committee time to 
consider a bill with no meaningful chance of consideration or passage 
in the Senate, let alone approval by the President is what explains the 
fact that the analysis that follows largely mirrors that which will 
appear in forthcoming minority views on H.R. 6951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               BACKGROUND

    Current law mandates operating procedures that any 
accrediting agency seeking federal recognition must follow when 
making determinations of school or program quality.\2\ The 
procedures currently mandated by HEA are designed to ensure 
accreditors are monitoring schools in a timely and common sense 
fashion to ensure quality. This includes conducting ad hoc 
supervision as needed when schools create new programs or 
expand to new campuses, ensuring schools have policies around 
the transfer of credit that students are aware of, and that 
schools have plans in place to support students completing 
their education in the event of loss of accreditation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\Higher Education Act of 1965, Sec. 496, 20 U.S.C. 1099b.
    \3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

``Litmus Tests''

    On its face, H.R. 3724 makes slight modifications to the 
requirements HEA places on federally recognized accrediting 
agencies. First, the bill adds a provision\4\ under which 
accrediting agencies must confirm that they do not require or 
entice a school to take a stance on any ``specific partisan, 
political, or ideological viewpoint or belief or set of such 
viewpoints and beliefs.''\5\ At markup, Chairwoman Virginia 
Foxx (R-NC) stated this provision ``ensures colleges are not 
forced to commit to the principles of DEI to receive 
accreditation.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\H.R. 6951, Sec. 311(c)(5). This same provision is titled the 
``Prohibition on Litmus Tests'' in H.R. 6951, the College Cost 
Reduction Act. Although this phrase does not appear in H.R. 3724, this 
provision is nearly identical to the ``Prohibition on Litmus Tests'' 
provision included in H.R. 6951, marked up by the Committee on Jan. 31, 
2024.
    \5\H.R. 3724, Sec. 2(a)(3).
    \6\Press Release, H. Comm. on Educ. & the Workforce, Chairwoman 
Foxx Delivers Opening Remarks at Markup to Bolster Workforce and 
Advance Academic Freedom, Mar. 21, 2024, https://edworkforce.house.gov/
news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=410332.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs on college 
campuses are designed with the recognition that most college 
campuses are currently serving students from demographics they 
were not initially designed to serve. While no two DEI programs 
are identical, The Century Foundation has provided a broad 
definition of the three key terms as they are used in practice 
on college campuses.

          Diversity refers to the range of different identities 
        within a particular space, whether it is based on race, 
        gender identification, sexual orientation, or other 
        factors; organizations seeking diversity value having a 
        community that represents humanity across the full 
        range of identities. Equity refers to the allocation of 
        an adequate amount of attention and/or resources toward 
        each identity to ensure that all groups can reach a 
        similar outcome; an organization seeking equity would 
        counter a community member's disadvantage by allocating 
        more resources and support toward that person. Finally, 
        inclusion refers to an organization's policies that 
        ensure its overall culture is welcoming to all 
        identities; an organization seeking inclusion could 
        create rules for conducting meetings or guidelines for 
        what would be considered inappropriate conversations . 
        . . DEI programs in colleges and universities aim to 
        create a campus culture that values and celebrates all 
        students' diverse life experiences and cultural 
        backgrounds. The central values of DEI are to ensure 
        equal access to success in higher education and provide 
        extra resources to specific populations to achieve 
        success standards similar to their peers. Universities 
        must provide adequate resources and tools for students 
        from different backgrounds to excel, considering 
        historical circumstances that often hindered their 
        access to higher education. In short, DEI programs 
        strive to foster an inclusive and equitable educational 
        environment for all students.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\Jordan Nellums, Universities Need to Mount and Offensive for 
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, The Century Foundation, Aug. 17, 
2023, https://tcf.org/content/commentary/universities-need-to-mount-an-
offensive-for-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/. For a thorough debunking 
of the myths surrounding DEI, and a direct refutation of much of the 
anti-DEI rhetoric espoused in Committee proceedings during the 118th 
Congress, see USC Race & Equity Ctr., Truths About DEI on College 
Campuses, 2024, https://race.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Harper-
and- Associates-DEI-Truths-Report.pdf.

    Republicans have not wasted a chance to denounce DEI 
initiatives in industry, governmental, and educational 
settings. For example, the ruling in the Havard and UNC 
affirmative action cases--in no way related to DEI--has been 
used as pretext for many Republicans to declare all DEI 
initiatives unconstitutional. Thirteen Republican state 
attorneys general wrote a joint letter to the CEOs of the 
Fortune 100 companies stating that ``diversity, equity, and 
inclusion'' (DEI) efforts may amount to ``overt and pervasive 
racial discrimination . . . [that] violates both state and 
federal law.''\8\ This initial insistence of DEI's prima facie 
illegality has diminished as more states have passed laws to 
actually prohibit DEI programs in higher education--laws that 
would arguably be unnecessary if those initial claims of DEI 
illegality were true.\9\ And in the most absurd sign of 
irrationality toward DEI, Republican state officials have taken 
to claiming DEI efforts are the cause of any and all societal 
ills including school fights, airplane malfunctions, and the 
collision of a container ship with a bridge and its subsequent 
collapse.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\Letter from Kris Kobach, Atty. Gen. of Kan. & 12 other State 
Attys. Gen. to the CEOs of the Fortune 100 Companies (July 13, 2023), 
https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/corporate-
racial-discrimination-multistate.pdf.
    \9\DEI Legislation Tracker, Chron. of Higher Educ., https://
www.chronicle.com/article/here-are-the-states-where-lawmakers-are-
seeking-to-ban-colleges-dei-efforts?sra=true (last visited Mar. 29, 
2024).
    \10\Summer Ballentine, Missouri attorney general is accused of 
racial bias for pinning a student fight on diversity program, 
Associated Press, Mar. 26, 2024; Ayana Archie, The Texas attorney 
general is investigating a supplier of Boeing 737 parts, Nat'l. Pub. 
Radio, Mar. 29, 2024 (``Paxton's office will be requesting documents 
related to `the company's organization, conduct and management,' as 
well as its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices to examine 
`whether those commitments are unlawful or are compromising the 
company's manufacturing processes,'''); Erin Alberty, Utah lawmaker 
blames DEI for Baltimore bridge collapse despite cargo ship collision, 
Axios, Mar. 27, 2024.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    H.R. 3724 also prohibits an accrediting agency from 
requiring, encouraging, or coercing schools to ``support or 
commit to supporting the disparate treatment of any individual 
or group of individuals on the basis of any protected class 
under Federal civil rights law, except as required by Federal 
law or a court order''.\11\ This statement only makes sense in 
a context where one believes DEI programs result in such 
disparate treatment. This is counter to what DEI programs are 
designed to do, which is to make campuses welcoming 
environments for all students.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\H.R. 3724, Sec. 2(a)(3).
    \12\USC Race & Equity Ctr., supra note 6, at 49 (``Claims that DEI 
programs mandate racial bias education or promote unequal treatment of 
individuals are unfounded and ignore many of the core principles of 
DEI, which are addressing systemic barriers to equity and ensuring that 
all individuals have equal opportunities to succeed.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In a recent article examining this issue, the Chronicle of 
Higher Education found that while accreditors are examining 
college DEI policies as part of their assessment, that 
examination is largely focused on determining whether schools 
are living up to what the universities themselves are claiming 
they are doing.\13\ For example the article cites Cal Lutheran, 
a school whose accreditor raised concerns around their 
treatment of faculty of color (30% of the school's 
instructional staff) and the school's outcomes measures for 
varying student populations. The school's President was quoted 
as saying the school was not taking action ``. . . because [the 
accreditor] says we have to, . . . . [W]e're doing it because 
it's the right thing to do and it's mission-driven.''\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\Eric Kelderman, The New Accountability: How accreditors are 
measuring colleges' diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, The 
Chronicle of Higher Education, Apr. 3, 2023, https://www.chronicle.com/
article/the-new-accountability (``Today, six out of the seven major 
institutional accreditors are developing ways to assess how colleges 
serve historically underrepresented students, by examining 
institutions' mission statements, the disparate outcomes between white 
students and students of color, the diversity of their faculties, and 
testimonies of community members about discrimination they face at the 
colleges.'')
    \14\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Absent any evidence that accreditors are denying schools 
accreditation based on DEI policies, the question occurs as to 
why are these provisions in H.R. 3724 necessary? Committee 
Democrats believe the litmus test provision's desired effects 
are two-fold.
    Republicans have long sought to politicize the academy and 
blur the lines between academic theory, research, scientific 
method, political viewpoints, and belief.\15\ H.R. 3724's first 
effect will be to further this effort by inserting this 
blurring of lines directly into the assessment of academic 
quality of a school's programs itself. Any academic discipline 
that includes a ``controversial'' view could be one that 
accreditors fear assessing, lest they run afoul of this 
provision. Accreditors are further refrained from assessing an 
institution or program of study's commitment to any ideology, 
belief, or viewpoint.\16\ For example, if H.R. 3724 became law, 
would a program accreditor, in assessing the quality of a 
university environmental science program, be forced to ignore 
that the program banned the teaching of the consensus 
scientific belief that man-made climate change is real because 
it was seen as ``political'' or merely a ``viewpoint''? The 
litmus test provision will result in a chilling effect setting 
in among accreditors, scaring them from taking an honest look 
at a school's claims as to its mission or the quality its 
programs, for fear they may wade into waters that could be 
considered ``controversial''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\E.g., Luke Jones, Ohio bill would ban colleges from discussing 
diversity, climate change, WKRC, May 8, 2023, https://dayton247now.com/
news/local/ohio-bill-would-ban-colleges-discussing-diversity-climate-
change-senate-bill-sb-83-controversial-topics-banned-public-private-
universities-schools-inclusion-equity-illegal-topics-chinese-
government-schools-cincinnati-ohio; Columbia L. Sch., Sabin Ctr. for 
Climate Change L., Silencing Science Tracker, https://climate. 
law.columbia.edu/content/silencing-science-tracker.
    \16\H.R. 3724, Sec. 2(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Second, the litmus test provisions will dissuade 
accreditors from making any assessment of what a school 
purports to do in the field of DEI. This will allow schools to 
stand up Potemkin DEI policies that promise an institutional 
focus on creating a campus welcoming to all, knowing full well 
their accreditor will not actually hold them accountable for 
these policies. As the racial demographics of college students 
continue to diversify,\17\ this could result in students 
attending schools that claim to welcome them, only to find 
those claims have never been verified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\See, e.g., Audrey Williams June, As America Grows More Diverse, 
a State's Colleges Follow Suit, Chron. of Higher Educ., Sept. 7, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Religious Institutions

    The second half of H.R. 3724 focuses on accreditation for 
religious colleges and universities. Religiously affiliated 
institutions of higher education have been a part of our nation 
since its early beginnings.\18\ Data from Integrated 
Postsecondary Education Data System shows that during the 2022-
2023 Academic Year, 14.5 percent of U.S. institutions of higher 
education were religiously affiliated.\19\ And though the total 
number of higher education institutions fell by 14.4 percent 
from 2010 to 2020, the number of religiously affiliated 
institutions fell only 3.3 percent during this same time 
period.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\Jessica Rose Daniels & Jacqueline N. Gustafson, Faith-Based 
Institutions, Institutional Mission, and the Public Good, High. Learn. 
Res. Commun., https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1132798.pdf (last 
visited on Feb. 12, 2024).
    \19\U.S. Dep't of Educ., Integrated Postsecondary Education Data 
System (IPEDS), Data Collection 2022 for Title IV-participating IHEs 
with a Religious affiliation.
    \20\Ricardo Azziz, Are Faith-Based Colleges in Trouble? It 
Depends., Higher Ed Dive (Aug. 14, 2023), https://www.highereddive.com/
news/are-faith-based-colleges-in-trouble-it-depends/690597/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Under current law, accreditors must consistently apply and 
enforce standards that respect an institution's mission, 
including its religious mission, by basing decisions only on 
the standards of accreditation.\21\ Current regulations also 
already provide certain safeguards for the missions of 
religious institutions while still maintaining the authority of 
accreditors to require that curricula at such institutions meet 
core components. Specifically, regulations state that an agency 
meets its obligations related to consistency in decision-
making, if an accrediting agency
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\20 U.S.C. Sec. 1099b(a)(4); 34 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 600.18(a)-
(b)(3).

          Bases decisions regarding accreditation and 
        preaccreditation on the agency's published standards 
        and does not use as a negative factor the institution's 
        religious mission-based policies, decisions, and 
        practices [in the following areas: (1) curricula; (2) 
        faculty, (3) faculties, equipment, and supplies; (4) 
        student support services; (5) recruiting and admissions 
        practices, academic calendars, catalogs, publicans, 
        grading, and advertising] provided, however, that the 
        agency may require that the institution's or program's 
        curricula include all core components required by the 
        agency.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\34 C.F.R. Sec. 602.18(b)(3) (emphasis added).

    Thus, current regulations already restrict accrediting 
agencies from interfering in a religious institution's 
religious mission and operations in several areas, while 
importantly affirming the continued authority of accrediting 
agencies to ensure institutions meet required core curricula 
components. It should be noted that the regulations mentioned 
above were promulgated by the Trump administration in 2019, and 
the U.S. Department of Education acknowledged, at that time, it 
had ``not received any formal complaints about an institution's 
negative treatment during the accreditation process because of 
its adherence to a religious mission.''\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\Student Assistance General Provisions, The Secretary's 
Recognition of Accrediting Agencies, The Secretary's Recognition of 
Procedures for State Agencies, 84 Fed. Reg. 58834, 58861 (Nov. 1, 2019) 
(codified at 34 C.F.R. Parts 600, 602, 603, 654, 668, and 674).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In contrast, H.R. 3724 proposes to protect the religious 
mission and operations of religious institutions without 
including that second vital policy piece: ensuring that 
accrediting agencies maintain the authority to require 
institutions to meet their curriculum standards. Moreover, H.R. 
3724 is the second proposal considered by this Committee in 
several weeks to weaken the accreditation process specifically 
for religious institutions. H.R. 6951, the College Cost 
Reduction Act, as passed by the Committee in January, proposed 
a sweeping exemption allowing religious institutions to skirt 
accreditation standards for core curricula requirements when 
those standards were not consistent with the institution's 
religious mission.\24\ Taken together, these legislative 
proposals could undermine the accreditation process and 
potentially mislead students that their chosen program of study 
meets the stated accreditation standards without exception. As 
a result, students may not be aware if they are not being 
instructed in the core curriculum for their chosen program of 
study. Committee Democrats believe that students have a 
fundamental right to know if their program of study does not 
meet accreditation standards. Under H.R. 3724, building upon 
the already-reported H.R. 6951, students at religious 
institutions may not be afforded the opportunity to learn what 
other students in their field do, putting them at an unrealized 
disadvantage when entering the workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\The College Cost Reduction Act, H.R. 6951, 118th Congress (as 
reported by the Committee on Education and the Workforce, January 31, 
2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In summation, H.R. 3724 fails to preserve the important 
function of accreditors to confirm that programs of study meet 
stated core curricula standards. Since religious institutions 
are currently able to execute the requirements of the law to 
meet accreditation standards while maintaining their religious 
identities, in addition to the fact that the current system 
works for schools, the provisions in H.R. 3724 are a solution 
in search of a problem.

        DEMOCRATIC AMENDMENTS OFFERED DURING MARKUP OF H.R. 3724

    Committee Democrats felt strongly the provisions of H.R. 
3724 were antithetical to the determination of quality in 
higher education, so there was little that could be done to 
improve upon the bill. However, we recognized a need to ensure 
that schools that relied upon new loopholes in quality 
assessment had to do so in a transparent manner. To that end, 
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) offered the one Democratic 
amendment to H.R. 3724. That amendment would require an 
institution that sought exemption from core curricula 
components required by an accrediting agency to publicly 
disclose that information to students and faculty. The 
amendment merely required a school to tell its students and 
faculty that it had sought and received an exemption from 
required core curricula and provide a description of those 
affected core curricula components. The amendment failed on a 
party line vote.

                               CONCLUSION

    If enacted into law, H.R. 3724 will do nothing to improve 
the quality of higher education in America, and all serious 
analysis suggests the result will be exactly the opposite. For 
this and the reasons stated above, Committee Democrats 
unanimously opposed H.R. 3724 when the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce considered it on March 21, 2024. We strongly 
urge the House of Representatives to do the same.

                                   Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott, Ranking 
                                       Member.
                                   Joe Courtney,
                                   Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
                                   Suzanne Bonamici,
                                   Mark Takano,
                                   Alma S. Adams,
                                   Mark DeSaulnier,
                                           Members of Congress.