Following a barrage of scathing third-party criticisms, a federal higher education advisory committee has voted to recommend suspending recognition for the American Psychological Association Commission on Accreditation. The decision stems from allegations that the organization has failed to adequately address antisemitism within its accredited programs, alongside mounting tensions over modern therapeutic frameworks and clinical training models.
The vote by the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), which took place during its committee meetings this month, marks a dramatic escalation in federal scrutiny over professional accrediting bodies. Speakers from Jewish advocacy organizations, professors embedded in APA-accredited programs, and independent mental health practitioners took turns unloading a heavy volume of complaints during the public comment sessions. They accused the psychological association of harboring and enabling antisemitic behavior within its training ranks, while critics on the opposite side—including advocates of conversion therapy—railed against the organization for its alleged embrace of progressive social agendas and gender ideology.
Several public commenters zeroed in on specific institutional flashpoints, notably the APA-accredited doctoral program in clinical psychology at George Washington University. Particular attention was drawn to a prominent 2022 controversy in which two Jewish students were subjected to formal remediation plans after raising complaints about what they characterized as an antisemitic guest lecture.
Beyond individual institutional disputes, multiple speakers—including members of the NACIQI panel itself—raised deep concerns regarding a therapeutic model known as "decolonial therapy." This framework explicitly examines how historical colonialism, systemic racism, and broader power structures intersect with and shape modern mental health practices. Critics argued that the practice pathologizes Jewish identity and injects partisan political ideology directly into clinical treatment and academic coursework. According to these critics, the widespread presence of such workshops and courses within APA-accredited programs demonstrates a systemic failure by the accreditor to maintain academic and clinical neutrality.
"You have a bunch of folks in the APA who are in programs that you accredit, who have, frankly, crazy ideas, who think that decolonial therapy is the right way to teach, or have crazy ideas about gender," said NACIQI committee member Adam Kissel, who spearheaded the effort to strip the APA of its federal recognition. Kissel further asserted that the organization’s trajectory reflects decades of accumulated administrative and institutional failures that have ultimately produced a "broken" professional field.
In response to the onslaught of criticism, Aaron Joyce, the APA’s head of accreditation, strongly condemned antisemitism. However, he maintained a distinction between the accrediting arm and the broader association, noting that many of the most severe allegations raised during the public comment period involved the overarching professional association rather than the Commission on Accreditation itself, placing them outside the direct jurisdiction of the accreditor. Nevertheless, Joyce pledged to review specific allegations directed against accredited programs, pointing out that the commission had already requested a specialized report from George Washington University and would actively follow up on any complaints tied directly to established accreditation standards.
Because the APA functions strictly as a programmatic accreditor rather than an institutional gatekeeper for federal student financial aid, the proposed suspension would not directly threaten the eligibility of colleges and universities housing APA-accredited programs.
While NACIQI members expressed profound alarm at the nature and severity of the third-party comments, the committee remained sharply divided over Kissel’s aggressive push to entirely deny recognition. Roslyn Clark Artis, a NACIQI member who also serves as the president of Benedict College, criticized the measure as overly "draconian." Similarly, fellow committee member Zakiya Smith Ellis questioned why rigorous monitoring and compliance reporting mechanisms would not suffice to correct the alleged deficiencies.
Ultimately, a proposal introduced by committee member Steve Taylor to recommend a suspension passed by a narrow 7-to-4 vote. Taylor defended his motion by arguing that a formal suspension would deliver a necessary "shockwave through the system" while preserving the Department of Education’s leverage to force structural changes at the APA Commission on Accreditation. This recommendation now advances to Under Secretary Nicholas Kent, who holds the authority to make a final determination. The department’s initial staff review had previously recommended approving the renewal of recognition for the accreditor.
In an official statement released following the conclusion of the meeting, Joyce firmly rejected the narrative pushed by NACIQI. While reiterating his condemnation of antisemitism as a "pernicious, dangerous and abhorrent bigotry with an ugly history in our country," he disputed the committee’s finding that a "pervasive culture of antisemitism" exists within professional psychology programs nationwide.
Joyce emphasized that the APA’s core accreditation work will persist regardless of the federal department’s final outcome. "We can and will still accredit programs," Joyce wrote. "Even if this recommendation is upheld by the Department of Education, the Commission remains recognized as an accreditor by the Council for Higher Education and Accreditation, and will continue to ensure students receive quality training and programs meet rigorous national standards. The NACIQI recommendation was a bad decision, not made in the best interests of faculty or students."
Inaction on ABA
While the turbulence surrounding the APA dominated a significant portion of the proceedings, the panel also grappled with the uncertain status of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) accreditation council, a contentious topic carried over from the opening day of the meetings when the committee failed to reach a consensus.
Following hours of intense debate and multiple failed votes earlier in the week, NACIQI ultimately voted to make no recommendation to the Department of Education regarding whether to renew or deny recognition to the ABA. The committee spent extensive time debating whether the ABA deserved continued federal recognition amid mounting questions regarding its diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, as well as whether its accreditation council operates with genuine independence from the broader association. Unable to forge an agreement, the committee punted the decision directly back to the department.
Last month, the Department of Education indicated that the ABA accreditation council should not be renewed due to alleged violations of federal regulatory compliance, a position outlined in a detailed 86-page report. Under Secretary Kent will now be forced to render a decision without the benefit of a formal NACIQI recommendation.
Representatives for the ABA strongly defended their record before the panel, insisting they remain in full compliance with federal standards, though several committee members voiced skepticism that the legal association took the regulatory concerns seriously. Following the committee’s inconclusive vote, the chair of the ABA’s accreditation council, Melissa Hart, issued a statement emphasizing the organization’s dedication to its regulatory duties. "We take accreditation and our recognition as an accreditor very seriously," Hart said. "We will continue to work cooperatively with the department as the recognition process continues."
Other Actions
With the prolonged deliberations over the ABA and the APA consuming the vast majority of the scheduled agenda, the NACIQI panel faced significant time constraints as it raced to complete its remaining business, ultimately forcing the postponement of two agenda items to a future meeting.
Before concluding the session, however, the committee successfully recommended the renewal of recognition for two other prominent accrediting bodies.
The first was The Commission on Colleges and Universities—formerly known as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools—which secured prompt approval. Despite drawing intense scrutiny from conservative politicians, such as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, over past disciplinary actions against member institutions, the agency encountered minimal resistance from the federal advisory panel.
Stephen Pruitt, who assumed the presidency of the commission last year following the retirement of longtime leader Belle Wheelan, described the organization to the committee as an "organization in transformation." Pruitt highlighted recent initiatives designed to tighten standards and reduce administrative burdens for member campuses. He also pointed out that the accreditor officially rescinded its diversity, equity, and inclusion position statement the previous year.
"We do not believe that any institution should be caught between an accreditor’s position statement and its state law," Pruitt told the committee, directly acknowledging the wave of state-level legislative restrictions targeting DEI initiatives.
Conversely, the Accreditation Commission for Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine (ACAHM) navigated a far more difficult path toward renewal. The agency faced a wave of critical third-party commentary from graduates of accredited programs who testified that they were burdened by heavy student debt while struggling to secure post-graduation earnings sufficient to justify the high cost of their education. Commenters pointed to weak career outcomes and questioned whether the accreditor had taken aggressive enough steps to lower program costs, shorten degree requirements, and enhance overall institutional accountability.
Supporters of the acupuncture accreditor countered that while the sector has room for improvement, the field is markedly better off with regulatory guidance than without it. They argued that stripping recognition would do nothing to alleviate systemic issues surrounding student debt or graduate earnings while removing a vital mechanism for oversight.
NACIQI member Bob Shireman noted that the operational and financial challenges facing ACAHM were significantly more severe than he had initially recognized. "It seemed like they had a lot of excuses for why it’s somebody else’s problem when they have an enormous amount of power and ability through their coalition, through the accreditation, to address the various concerns that have been raised," Shireman remarked prior to the vote.
Ultimately, NACIQI voted to approve the renewal of the acupuncture commission, but attached a strict caveat: the accreditor must rectify compliance deficiencies flagged by the Department of Education within 12 months and submit a comprehensive progress report detailing how it has addressed admissions transparency, curriculum mandates, and debt-to-earnings ratios.
The committee opted to defer deliberations on the recognition renewals for the Accrediting Bureau of Health Education Schools and the Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools Accreditation Commission, scheduling them to be revisited at a subsequent meeting.
