The standoff was one of the most heated of the Civil Rights Movement. It was 1962, and Black student James Meredith sued to gain admission to the segregated University of Mississippi and won. White students rioted on campus against his admission, leaving two dead in the process. The state’s Governor Ross Barnett, a Democrat, was convicted of contempt of court for personally blocking Meredith’s registration.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, called Meredith a one of the “real heroes” of the South, a true “pioneer” for what he endured in the melee.
At the time, few outside the Black community in the South stood up for Meredith.
Except for one group.
The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, or SACSCOC, was the accreditor for the universities and colleges across much of the South, including Mississippi. As the accreditor for Ole Miss, SACSCOC decided whether or not the school met the standards to receive federal funding. One of the standards, according to the accreditor: That schools be free from “undue political interference.”
In a broadside at a meeting in Miami, SACSCOC declared that if Gov. Barnett did not stop interfering in the administration of the university, all colleges and universities in Mississippi could lose accreditation. And with it, access to federal funding. Students — white students — flew into a panic. With no federal funding, their school could shut down.
”I don’t give a damn about James Meredith or what color he is,” a student told a Miami Herald reporter at the time. “I want this university to stay open and to remain accredited.”
Barnett and the university relented to the pressure from SACSCOC and the federal government. The school’s accreditation was not stripped. At a high cost, but nonetheless: The University of Mississippi was desegregated.
The 1962 incident is emblematic of the historical importance of independent accreditation agencies in the U.S. Associations like SACSCOC are independent of the government, and yet they have long played an important role in maintaining the mission and integrity of higher education.
At times, accreditors butt heads with state governments that operate public universities. For years, this has been a normal part of business.
But a group of Southern states, led by the State of Florida, are moving to revolutionize how accreditation works. A brand new accreditor, called the Commission for Public Higher Education, or CPHE, has been created by and for the Southern states. Effectively, the states have concocted a way in which they can oversee themselves.
The ability of SACSCOC to provide outside oversight to states like Florida and Mississippi will be a thing of the past.
Florida spearheaded the creation of CPHE, but it reaches across five other states in the southern U.S. — Texas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Georgia — causing concern among some academics in other states that they’ll feel the heat of Florida’s political fire. More states could follow.
Federal law forbids a state from accrediting itself because of the inherent conflict of interest it would create. But by starting a new accreditor that is co-managed alongside other states, Florida appears to have found a workaround.
“Historically, accrediting agencies have provided a really useful counterweight to political control of colleges, especially in the face of segregationists in the South,” said Robert Shireman, a member of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity.
Segregationist governors didn’t like it when accreditors called them out on that, he continued, “and so that history has led now to this DeSantis entity.”
The “DeSantis entity” was created at a time when Southern states — with Florida in the lead — move to battle against what they call the “woke” agenda in education. Diversity initiatives are being rolled back. Widespread restrictions on how concepts of race are taught in the classroom have been implemented.
READ MORE: Florida removed Sociology from 'core curriculum' as faculty cry foul
Academics worry that under the CPHE, institutions will feel the pressure to abide by standards that are very different from those offered by SACSCOC. The new standards, they worry, will be more favorable to conservative politicians, put academic integrity at risk, loosen oversight and accountability, and open the door for institutions that don’t meet the bar.
The CPHE has already emerged as the most high-profile player in a nationwide effort to revolutionize how colleges and universities have access to federal dollars. As access to that money is shaken to the core, the higher education system as we know it could cease to exist.
“ The independence of traditional higher education in America, a lot of that damage has already been done,” Shireman said, warning of the greater battle playing out. “The system is not yet destroyed, [but] this could accomplish that destruction, essentially creating a Viktor Orbán Hungarian-style control of higher education in the United States.”
'Favoritism' of ideas allowed by new guidelines
The newly released CPHE guidelines for higher learning differ from SACSCOC guidelines that have been in place for decades. The new rules give considerable leeway to how schools, states and lawmakers can influence curriculum and campus operations.
The guidelines explicitly subordinate some aspects of campus activities to the political realm, unlike SACSCOC and its historical aversion to “undue political interference.”
In a section about “intellectual diversity,” the new guidelines say that “affirmative favoritism” of certain ideas on campus is valid when “cultural habits or practices” on a campus are already skewed towards other ideas.
In other words, schools can tilt the scales to make some ideas more prevalent than others. They can also suppress other ideas in the name of achieving a balance.
That balance will be considered when it comes to access to federal money.
“ It's the entire institution that's at issue,” Cameron Howell, the secretary and member of the Board of Trustees of the University of South Carolina, told WLRN. “We think what's important is to consider intellectual diversity in the totality of what is being addressed in the curriculum.”
For the last year Howell has been “on loan” to CPHE, where he serves as a senior advisor to the new accreditor. Howell said many are shocked that the CPHE included a section on “intellectual diversity” in its newly released standards, but he said they were simply “anticipating” reforms the Trump administration plans to make in accreditation.
The guidelines specify that each institution has the power to decide what is “appropriate” for that school.
“ It's not an attempt to achieve some kind of ideological balance, political or otherwise,” he said. “It's about a balance of ideas to which students are exposed.”
Some skeptics question how the new standards will be applied fairly, since pinpointing bias is largely up to interpretation.
“ What's happened now is that politicians and political movements — MAGA — has basically decided: ‘We don't like the ideas that are being produced within the university.’ And instead of refuting them on scholarly grounds, we're gonna put our thumb on the political scale in order to prevent those ideas from being taught,” Isaac Kamola, director of the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom at the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), a professional organization.
Kamola is also an associate professor of political science at Trinity College in Connecticut, and he said the AAUP is on edge about how CPHE is being used as a tool by the Trump administration to force obedience from higher education institutions, a tactic outlined in Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation framework for the second Trump Administration that is closely associated with the president.
“ It becomes a way to use political leverage to make sure that the ideas that the politicians prefer are reflected on college campuses,” said Kamola.
If the CPHE doesn’t like what is being taught on campus, he said: “You don’t get access to federal funding.”
After the AAUP submitted feedback to the CPHE as it developed new standards, the commission did incorporate some of its suggestions. When it comes to “academic freedom” on campus, the CPHE incorporated the AAUP’s 1940 Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure into its new standards, calling it “arguably the most relevant source” on the subject. The AAUP’s 1966 statement on the right for faculty to “determine appropriate curriculum” was also included.
But some university systems have already taken steps to restrict curriculum. The Florida State University System recently removed the course Introduction to Sociology from the core curriculum offered to freshmen after state officials took offense to the discipline itself, saying it violated a new state law.
READ MORE: Chapters deleted, sections added: Florida's new sociology textbook is 'stop-gap,' says professor
“Sociology as a discipline is now social and political advocacy dressed in the regalia of the academy," state university chancellor Ray Rodrigues said in March.
Rob Tabor, an associate professor of history at Fayetteville State University in North Carolina, has offered feedback to the CPHE as it developed new accreditation guidelines. The feedback has been given through the group Faculty for Responsible Education and Accreditation, made up of faculty leaders from seven Southern states.
Tabor said he has warned the CPHE that educators need broad leeway in how subjects are taught, and that politicians should stay out of the classroom. He said he is “surprised” that SACSCOC or other accreditors have not been more combative with “educational gag order” laws that have passed in Southern states, and that he hopes CPHE does not allow politicians to simply bulldoze academic freedoms.
“ I think we run a risk when the state legislature is saying, ‘Here's what universities can teach. Here's what they can't teach. We're going to try to prevent research in this area, discussion of this thing or that thing,’” he said. “ That's the message that as faculty we're bringing to CPHE, is 'Make sure that this is an accrediting body that protects what makes our universities great, that helps our students succeed.'”
But at the same time, Tabor said he has appreciated how collaborative CPHE has been — more so than SACSCOC in his experience — and that the group has “responded warmly” to faculty feedback. The section on “intellectual diversity” is case in point.
“What I feel comfortable saying is that the intellectual diversity section is much better than it used to be,” said Tabor. “We continue to be engaged with them. We continue to express our concerns, and they continue to listen to us or at least hear us out, which is great.”
As the work of the CPHE ramps up, some educators are looking forward to the shake up CPHE will usher in.
“ I think change is healthy, change is necessary. There's a new reality out there that is a reality different than what SACSCOC was attempting to capture, as far as I'm concerned,” said Mark Rosenberg, a former Florida university chancellor and former president of Florida International University.
Unlike the SACSCOC standards, which focus on education itself, the new CPHE standards put an emphasis on student outcomes. When it comes to whether schools have access to federal funding or not, metrics will be based on “economic impact, job creation,” and the “production of graduates for workforce needs,” according to the new standards.
Rosenberg said it is “refreshing” that CPHE will put more emphasis on weighing student outcomes post-graduation. Florida has already been incorporating many of those metrics, he said, and it’s a big reason the state university system has been ranked as the top system in the country for eight years. But he said SACSCOC, which many refer to as just SACS, didn’t take those achievements into account.
“ What is the time to degree? What is the graduation rate?” he said. “SACS was well intended. SACS played a role. But it was time for a change.”
The long road to Florida's open battle with SACSCOC
The fight over the future of accreditation of higher education has been a constant low rumble in battles between the State of Florida and SACSCOC over the course of many years.
In 2020, a yearslong effort by the legislature to consolidate the campuses of the University of South Florida drew the attention of SACS after a Republican state senator was publicly heavily involved, alleging that the senator might represent undue influence “by external persons or bodies.”
When Richard Corcoran, the then-Education Commissioner for Florida, was floated as a potential candidate to be the president of Florida State University in 2021, SACSCOC issued a stern warning to the state. Corcoran — a former Republican Speaker of the Florida House and close ally of Gov. DeSantis — himself sat on the Board of Governors that made final decisions about presidential searches. That represented an unacceptable conflict of interest if Corcoran was advanced in the presidential search, and meant that Florida universities “might be out of compliance” with accreditation standards if it moved forward with hiring him, SACSCOC wrote in a letter at the time. Conservative groups said SACSCOC was “politicizing” its role as accreditor.
Under the threat of Florida universities losing access to federal funds, Corcoran was not selected as FSU president. (A similar situation is currently replaying itself after Florida Education Commissioner Anastasios Kamoutsas was named the new president of Polk State College in June.)
Also in 2021, the University of Florida barred three professors from testifying against the state as expert witnesses in a much-watched voting rights case in 2021. The university argued that since the three professors were state employees and would testify against the state’s position in the case, their testimony was against the interest of the university.
SACSCOC issued a stern warning to the university once the ban became publicly known, warning that it appeared that the state was infringing on the “academic freedom” of the professors because of external influence, and that the state’s accreditation was under the microscope. The state again relented to the pressure, allowing the professors to testify as expert witnesses in the case.
Following those incidents, the Florida Board of Governors became incensed that an accreditor was in the position to assert itself into what it saw as internal issues. The accreditor itself had become an “undue influence” in the process, members argued.
“ The fundamental issue at hand for me is the independence of our governing authority,” Alan Levine, the chairman of the Board of Governors, said at a March 2022 meeting. “I’ve looked at the [SACSCOC accreditation] standards. There is not a single standard I disagree with. It’s about the application of the standards.”
No one ever elected SACSCOC, said then-Board of Governors member Kent Stermon. Public and private schools send representatives to SACSCOC, but they are removed from the democratic process. Stermon said that as the top-rated university system in the country, Florida had to be “prepared to lead” the fight against an accreditor that had launched “assaults on our system.”
“If anyone has the power to stand up to it, it has to be us. And we possibly have to be prepared for that to be a bloody fight,” he said. “A fight that we have not brought on or welcomed, but a fight that was necessary.”
The legislature soon passed a law requiring every university to change its accreditor every five years. Higher education institutions across the South had traditionally only been accredited by SACSCOC, but technically schools were free to use other accreditors that traditionally operate in other regions. The law now mandated that they do so.
That was easier said than done.
The Biden administration shortly afterwards warned Florida that forcing schools to change accreditors could jeopardize federal funding for Florida students. The Education Department issued a memo stating that colleges and universities needed to show “reasonable cause” for changing accreditors, saying that allowing for persistent accreditor shifting could create a “race to the bottom” and worsen outcomes for students.
The DeSantis administration pushed back and sued the Biden Administration in 2023, arguing that the federal government had “unconstitutionally collaborated” with accrediting agencies to grant the private groups “near limitless power” over state institutions.
The Florida state government had “a desire for greater involvement in the governance of state institutions,” argued DeSantis in the lawsuit, claiming that the state should not have to answer to a private group. Florida’s lawsuit was dismissed by a federal district court in late 2024.
Months later, Florida created the CPHE. If Florida couldn’t shake the accreditors, it would create a new one in its own image.
READ MORE: Gov. DeSantis unveils new higher ed accreditation panel to upend existing 'woke' system
“ What we've seen develop is an accreditation cartel,” said DeSantis at a press conference announcing the creation of the CPHE last June.
The phrase “accreditation cartel” appears to have first been made in the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, in a section about how to implement sweeping, conservative-friendly changes to public universities.
'I see this as a regional issue'
Back in 1941, higher education in Georgia was thrown into a crisis after the governor forced the university to fire a professor who allegedly wanted to end segregation. SACSCOC acted quickly to prevent it from happening again.
From one day to the next, SACSCOC stripped the entire state of Georgia of its accreditation, leaving schools in Georgia without access to federal dollars. The reason: undue outside political influence on university functions. Students were caught in the middle, and in 1943 voters passed a constitutional amendment in Georgia that fully separated the governance of higher education from the rest of state government to shield the system from political interference. After the reform, SACSCOC reinstated the schools’ accreditation, allowing students to once again access federal money.
More than 80 years later, politics might soon rear its head back into Georgia from the unlikeliest of places: the neighboring State of Florida and the CPHE.
Under the CPHE, Georgia and other states have a seat on the Board of Directors that steer the direction of the new accreditation body, alongside Florida.
But the relationship between all states and the CPHE is not equal.
All decisions made by the mishmash of officials across the South in running the new accreditation body would be subject to “oversight” and potential veto by the Florida Board of Governors, or the FBOG, reflecting the state's initial $4 million investment to launch the accreditor. The only way other states can join Florida in exercising veto power is if they contribute money as well. Last week, Florida officials added the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina alongside the Sunshine State, after North Carolina officials pledged to contribute $2.35 million.
The federal government chipped in with a $1 million grant last year.
As David Boedy, the AAUP state president for Georgia sees it, the new collaboration between conservative states and the Trump administration could freeze the current political zeitgeist in place for generations to come. Even if Georgia or Texas were to elect Democratic governors in November, their state university systems could still be beholden to a conservative body that holds access to their federal funding.
“ It is a buffer against the politics they don't like by setting up accreditation standards that university systems would have to follow no matter who the governor is,” said Boedy, who is a professor of rhetoric at the University of North Georgia. “ These standards are really the long-term play for making higher education in the South, at least, run by whoever's in power right now. Extending their legacy, if you will.”
Boedy said that as a Georgia resident, he shouldn’t have to keep tabs on Florida politics or politics of other states.
With CPHE coming to his state soon, he has no choice.
The Florida Board of Governors has recently moved to allow new states to be incorporated into the organization, although it is unclear what other states might join.
“I see this as a regional issue,” said Boedy.
Jason Jewell, the Chief Academic Officer at the Florida State University System, was selected by the Florida to hold the state’s seat on the CPHE, said in a podcast last year that frustration had been growing from years that SACSCOC “had been interfering with the the governance of the state universities,” and that in some cases SACSCOC was “discouraging” universities and colleges from “abiding by certain elements of state law.”
“That’s kind of an intolerable thing,” said Jewell.
Jewell’s main job in Florida is to enforce new curriculum restrictions for general education courses. Those restrictions led to the removal of the Introduction to Sociology course from general education earlier this year.
The creation of the CPHE was necessary to make sure Florida can continue down its current path without regard to accrediting agencies, Jewell said on the podcast.
“ There was a desire to try to establish some other kind of option for Florida schools if the broader accrediting environment ever became more inhospitable,” he said.
CPHE's rush to cross the finish line
With its new standards finalized in mid-May, the CPHE is just starting to have conversations with schools across the South about starting the actual work of accreditation. The CPHE expects to be deep into the process by late this year, and by next year it expects to be able to apply to the Trump administration to become a full-fledged accreditor, holding the key to federal funding for schools under its watchful eye. Under the current timeline, that means the CPHE could be fully accredited in late 2028.
“ We need these things approved and implemented during President Trump's term of office,” Gov. DeSantis said during his announcement that the CPHE was being created in June of 2025. “The reality is if it doesn't get approved and stick during that time, you can have a president come in next and potentially revoke it. And they could probably do that very quickly.”
In recent months the Trump administration has begun a larger move to overhaul the way higher education accrediting works. The new proposed rules would eliminate the waiting period of two years, potentially allowing dozens of upstart accreditors to get in on the business. The Trump administration says the changes are needed to introduce market competition into the sector, lower compliance costs and strengthen accountability.
“President Trump tasked us with implementing some of the most critical higher education reforms in history — and we are proud to once again deliver resounding and lasting results for American students and taxpayers,” said Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent.
The newly proposed rules could bring bad actors rushing back into the system, said Jay Newhard, an associate professor of philosophy at East Carolina University in North Carolina who is affiliated with AAUP.
“Universities will be accredited by accrediting agencies that are just bogus,” said Newhard. “ They're already warming up, gearing up again to relaunch.”
Compared to some other accreditors he has seen, “CPHE would actually look like the best one,” said Newhard.
But even that makes him uncomfortable, because “that would mean state control of university systems.”
For the CPHE, full-fledged state control of university systems is largely the point. Public universities and colleges were created by states. They offer degrees with the blessing of the state governments. And so for the states involved with creating the CPHE, they want to avoid outside oversight.
Among themselves, the states will create their own checks and balances. If one state’s public universities are under scrutiny, people working directly with that system might be required to “recuse themselves” because of potential “conflicts of interest,” said Howell of the CPHE.
As the tidal wave of this change nears, and as CPHE inches closer to starting its work, professors and students across the South will be the ones left to wade through the flood.
“ There's rising student concern about what all of this means for their ability to learn on subjects like climate change, gender inequality, racism in healthcare, things like that,” said Jacqui Ignatova, a professor of sustainable development at Appalachian State University in North Carolina. “And it would affect so many different faculty on campus and their ability to teach the courses they've been trained and hired to teach.”
Ignatova, who is also the co-president of the school’s AAUP local chapter, says this also stirs an internal ethical and moral conflict in professors, including herself. She weighs a difficult choice: teach the subject according to her expert standards and knowledge, or water it down to the version state officials find palatable.
“ I know what I was trained and hired to teach and I'm gonna continue to teach it,” Ignatova said. “That is my choice and I know that there could be consequences for that. But I also know that these attacks on higher ed are fascism in practice — and I don't like playing nice with fascists.”
