Faculty raise concerns over independence and political influence

The Commission for Public Higher Education (CPHE) is a newly established higher education accreditor in the United States. Created to provide an alternative for existing accreditation bodies, CPHE has a mission to public colleges and universities. Its stated mission is to offer accreditation standards that ensure transparency, measurable outcomes, and alignment with the needs of public higher education. Only four months old, CPHE has already gained traction with some institutions seeking alternative methods of accreditation. Leaders noted that the organisation is working toward future recognition by the U.S. Department of Education, which, as a rule, requires several years’ time.

In this context, CPHE has just received letters of intent from 10 institutions across four states, marking the first cohort of potential members for the new accreditor. This reflects early momentum for CPHE as it positions itself within a landscape involving U.S. higher education regulatory authority. The first group comprises four states: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas. All are accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). Institutions applying to the new accreditor include Appalachian State University, Chipola College, Columbus State University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida Polytechnic University, Georgia Southern University, North Carolina Central University, Texas A&M Kingsville, Texas A&M Texarkana, and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

With draft standards in place, CPHE is now working toward its long-term goal of recognition by the U.S. Department of Education. Observers believe the process could take years, but the first cohort gives CPHE an opportunity to show how it could operate differently. As officials indicated, all prospective members are public institutions according to CPHE’s mission. They come from a variety of types, including large research universities like Florida Atlantic, historically Black institutions like North Carolina Central University, and smaller colleges like Chipola.

Daniel Harrison, vice president for academic affairs at the University of North Carolina system, said the group was larger and more diverse than expected at this stage. He added that CPHE had capped the initial cohort at 10 but anticipated welcoming more institutions next year. The universities will still hold their SACSCOC accreditation through the process of acceptance with CPHE. This involves participating in self-studies, peer review meetings, and site visits, which are standard for any U.S. university accreditation review.

Some institutions provided reasons as to why they decided to affiliate themselves with the new agency. According to Neva Specht, provost of Appalachian State University, it welcomes a peer review process that acknowledges the unique role public higher education plays. “Also, clear outcomes linked to public standards would enhance confidence externally, in the institution, and more broadly in the sector,” she added. Chipola College president Sarah Clemmons explained that with numerous accreditation options available, healthy competition would thrive. She argued that pressure would bring about innovation and consistent improvement, thereby strengthening quality assurance and benefiting students and institutions most.

Meanwhile, UNC Charlotte faced criticism for pursuing CPHE accreditation without faculty input. The university referred to a previously published statement and FAQs in response. Politics has been intertwined with the establishment of CPHE, introduced by Florida governor Ron DeSantis, who has been criticising existing accreditors and accusing them of imposing diversity standards. However, CPHE leaders have been careful to dissociate themselves from partisan rhetoric. Harrison mentioned that the commission is working closely with faculty to cement independence and emphasised that the whole process is about outcomes and not politics.

He cited former president Mark Becker, past president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, who joined the CPHE board. Becker also mentioned that the time is ripe for innovation in accreditation, where CPHE could be a lead driver of improvement in student outcomes. Despite all these assurances, critics still have their concerns. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has issued a warning that CPHE could undermine independence from state governments and that academic freedom might be at stake. Faculty members have urged that changes in accreditation in higher education should not be subject to political agendas.

Matthew Boedy, a professor at the University of North Georgia, said lack of independence was worrying with CPHE. He noted that state-run accreditation may extend beyond universities to programmes such as law and medicine, which could escalate concerns further into more serious matters. The AAUP has urged members to contact lawmakers and trustees, arguing that CPHE is not academically credible and might jeopardise shared governance.

In response, CPHE officials stressed transparency and non-partisanship. According to a CPHE adviser, Cameron Howell, the organisation worked hard to disprove all claims, showing that their decisions were aboveboard with a purely process-oriented and results-focused agenda. He added that involvement and improvement of practice was central to building trust and showing that accreditation was about improving standards and not politics.

Editor’s Note

The Commission for Public Higher Education (CPHE) represents a significant new entity in U.S. higher education regulation. Established as a new accreditor, the CPHE aims to offer a transparent alternative to current accreditation bodies. It achieves this by focusing on measurable outcomes and ensuring alignment with the specific needs of public colleges and universities. Importantly,CPHE has quickly gained attraction within just four months. Ten institutions from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas have filed letters of intent, marking the first cohort of potential new members. This early momentum shows how some universities are indeed contemplating changes to the accreditation system in higher education and are thinking of new pathways for quality assurance.

The diversity even among this small group,from large research institutions to historically Black universities to smaller institutions,shows that what CPHE is trying to do resonates among a wide array of institutions. Leaders have clarified that it shall entail self‑studies, peer reviews, and site visits, all standard practices in any U.S. university accreditation review. Simultaneously, debates on the topic started appearing soon after CPHE was created. While proponents argue that competition between accreditors might foster innovation and ultimately enable viable quality assurance, detractors question the independence and political neutrality of CPHE. Faculty organisations, including the American Association of University Professors, meanwhile, have cautioned that true academic freedom and shared governance can best be protected if accreditation is kept free from state intrusion. CPHE officials have, nonetheless, made transparency and non-partisanship their utmost priority. They have highlighted that the processes and outcomes of the work, and not politics, constitute the focus, with stakeholder engagement at the centre of building trust.

The CPHE’s establishment bears both opportunity and challenges in the creation of a new higher education accreditor. It reflects the continued evolution of accreditation standards in higher education and raises vital questions on how, in the future, accreditation will affect students, institutions, and academic programmes.

FAQs

1. What is the Commission for Public Higher Education (CPHE)?

The CPHE is a newly established higher education accreditor in the United States. It was created to provide an alternative to existing accreditation bodies, focusing on transparency, measurable outcomes, and alignment with the needs of public colleges and universities.

2. Why are universities seeking a new higher education accreditor?

Institutions are exploring CPHE accreditation as a way to introduce competition among accreditors, encourage innovation, and strengthen quality assurance. Some leaders believe multiple accreditation options can improve standards and benefit students.

3. Which institutions are showing interest in the new accreditor?

Ten institutions across Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas have submitted letters of intent. These include Appalachian State University, Chipola College, Columbus State University, Florida Atlantic University, Florida Polytechnic University, Georgia Southern University, North Carolina Central University, Texas A&M Kingsville, Texas A&M Texarkana, and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

4. How does the federal review process affect university accreditation?

For CPHE to be formally recognised, it must undergo a review by the US Department of Education. This process typically takes several years and involves self‑studies, peer reviews, and site visits, all standard parts of accreditation recognition.

5. What are the benefits of switching accreditors for US colleges?

Supporters argue that new accreditation options can foster innovation, improve measurable outcomes, and enhance confidence in institutions. They believe competition among accreditors strengthens quality assurance and ultimately benefits students and the wider higher education community.

6. How does accreditation impact students and academic programmes? 

Accreditation ensures that institutions meet recognised standards of quality. It affects student confidence, institutional reputation, access to federal funding, and the credibility of academic programmes.

7. What concerns have been raised about CPHE?

Critics, including faculty organisations such as the American Association of University Professors, have expressed concerns about CPHE’s independence. They argue that state‑run accreditation could threaten academic freedom, shared governance, and institutional autonomy.

8. How has CPHE responded to criticism?

CPHE officials have emphasised transparency, non‑partisanship, and stakeholder involvement. They stated that their focus is on process and results, not politics, and that faculty engagement is central to building trust in the new accreditor.