Silence from the Top:
A Review of the Regional Accreditors Regarding Diversity and Social Justice in Organizational Documents
The absence of meaningful language on diversity, inclusion, and social justice in the Standards of Accreditation by the six regional accreditors has led to limited inclusive language in the organizational documents of colleges and universities. While institutions of higher education can adjust their institutional documents independently, the lack of emphasis on social issues by regional accreditors is a vacillation of responsibility. Regional accreditors must update their Standards of Accreditation and require meaningful incorporation regarding diversity and social justice in the institutional documents of colleges and universities. These statements must be more than press releases concerned with legal liability and trustee anxiety (England & Purcell, 2020). If higher education is to fulfill its obligations to society, higher education must develop organizational statements attuned to issues of diversity, inclusion, and social justice in America.
While these organizational documents include mission, vision, and values, the mission is the heart of the organization and must address issues of diversity, inclusion, and social justice. Mission statements are leading with the end in mind (Sommers, 2009). Presumably, five of the six regional accreditors outline the institutional mission in their first Standards of Accreditation in recognition of the importance of mission (SACSCOC includes the mission in Section 2 after integrity). Mission statements define “the historical, physical, social, fiscal, religious, and political contexts in which that institution exists” (Abelman, 2012, p. 86) and, considering American institutions of higher education exist in the historical and political reality of social inequality and injustice, it is surprising that the regional accreditors offer such limited guidance in their accreditation standards.
The field of literature defines the three-fold mission of higher education as teaching, research, and society. Giusepponi and Tavoletti (2018) describe the “so-called third mission, as the transfer of knowledge to society and not just students, and in such forms as to contribute to social and economic progress” (p. 303). The phrase social progress might encompass diversity and social justice, but it is not synonymous with diversity and social justice. Currently, the regional accrediting bodies in the United States do not uniformly require institutions of higher education to incorporate language regarding diversity, equality, inclusion, and justice in their organizational documents. MSCHE refers to “respect” for diversity (MECHE, Standard II.2), but it is neither required in the mission nor is there an accountable measurement of what respect is and how “respect” meets the loftier goals of higher education’s third-mission. Similarly weak and unmeasurable is WASC’s 2.2a which suggests that students should merely gain “an appreciation for diversity.” NECHE Standards Five and Six refers to diversity in the faculty and student bodies, but wider references to social justice are absent. Standard 3.1 of WASC implies that diversity is a tool for achieving goals, but not a goal in and of itself.
Even extending the exploration of the regional standards beyond the term diversity to include similar words and phrases (such as equality, equity, justice, multicultural, and social justice), there is still a dearth of inclusive language in the regional Standards of Accreditation. Neither MECHE, NWCCU, SACSCOC, or WASC mention inclusion or social justice in their accreditation guidelines. In Standard 1.1., NECHE states that “The mission of the institution defines its distinctive character, addresses the needs of society,” but there is no definition of what constitutes a need of society. Likewise, WASC states that the mission of accredited schools should reference how it “contributes to the public good” (Standard 1.1), but “public good” is not defined. WASC does, in Standard 1.4, state that “Consistent with its purposes and character, the institution demonstrates an appropriate response to the increasing diversity in society.” The only regional accreditor to implicitly refer to social justice is NWCCU (1.D.2, 1.D.4, 2.G.1), but NWCCU refers to “equity” and “achievement gaps” in reference to students and not in regards to external stakeholders and social justice nationally or globally. Additionally, NWCCU undermines its own standard in 1.D.4. by discounting “gaps in achievement and equity” as “perceived gaps in achievement and equity.”
If time and treasure is a measurement of true intentions, then inclusive language is not uniformly valued by the regional accreditors. MECHE’s Standard 1 includes 220 words to describe expectations regarding mission and has no reference to inclusion or social justice. Four other descriptions of mission may differ in length (NECHE, 275 words; NWCCU, 17 words; SACSCOC, 32 words, and WASC, 33 words), but all share a lack of meaningful discussion regarding diversity and social justice. SACSCOC adopted a position statement on diversity (updated 2011) that “diversity in higher education is critical to the social and economic future of this country” but fails to include diversity in its accreditation standards. In fact, SACSCOC and NWCCU are the only regional accreditors to not include diversity in their standards regarding students (MECHE, Standard II.2; NECHE, Standards Six; WASC, 1.4) or faculty (MECHE, Standard II.2; NECHE, Standards Six; WASC, 3.1).
HLC also did not include diversity in student or faculty populations, but HLC has recently adopted more inclusive language and has added diversity to Standard 3.C. Already, HLC’s current Standard 1.C. states, “The institution understands the relationship between its mission and the diversity of society… [and] that the institution addresses its role in a multicultural society… [as well as] the institution’s processes and activities reflect attention to human diversity as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it serves.” That is, each of the institutions accredited by HLC must address the “relationship between its mission and the diversity of society and the school’s role in a multicultural society. Moreover, the updated Standard 1.C takes effect on September 1, 2020, and states:
1.C. The institution provides opportunities for civic engagement in a diverse, multicultural society and globally connected world, as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it serves.
● The institution encourages curricular or co-curricular activities that prepare students for informed citizenship and workplace success.
● The institution’s processes and activities demonstrate the inclusive and equitable treatment of diverse populations.
● The institution fosters a climate of respect among all students, faculty, staff, and administrators from a range of diverse backgrounds, ideas, and perspectives.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon all HLC accredited institutions to review their organizational documents for alignment to new Standard 1.C. In addition, the other regional accreditors should review their Standards of Accreditation and establish stronger language regarding diversity, equality, inclusion, justice, multiculturalism, and social justice. Higher education must do more to show a commitment to diversity, equality, inclusion, justice, and multiculturalism. It is not enough to seek an inclusive and diverse population of students, staff, faculty, and administrators. It is not enough to be multiculturally aware. If regional accreditors do not emphasize diversity and social justice, there is little motivation for the institutions beholden to regional accreditation to do so either. Regional accreditors and institutions of higher education must embrace the third mission of higher education and be committed to “social progress” and the “public need” for diversity and social justice institutionally, nationally, and globally.
[Note: This article was originally published on researchgate.net on June, 23, 2020.]
References
Abelman, R. (2012). The verbiage of vision: Mission and identity in theologically conservative Catholic colleges and universities. Catholic Social Science Review, 17, 83–108. https://doi.org/10.5840/cssr2012178
England, J., & Purcell, R. (2020). Higher Ed’s toothless response to the killing of George Floyd. The Chronicle of Higher Education. June 8, 2020. https://www.chronicle.com/article/Higher-Ed-s-Toothless/248946?
Giusepponi, K., & Tavoletti, E. (2018). Vision and mission statements in Italian universities: Results of an empirical investigation on strategic orientation. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 1, 301. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-015-0343-7
Sommers, D. (2009). Information leadership… leading with the end in mind. Techniques: Connecting Education & Careers, 84(4), 41–45. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ858221
