37 of the 41 people who gave oral comments before NACIQI on December 16th offered reasons as to why the ACCJC should have its authorization as a regional accreditor revoked. The comments were heartfelt, data-driven and compelling. Three of the four who spoke in defense of the commission were seated ACCJC commissioners, two of whom did not identify themselves as such.
Here are some of the comments offered. (This document will be updated as more commenters send the webmaster their scripts.)
NACIQI’s decision to give the ACCJC six more months to come into compliance was, according to Inside Higher Ed, “the strongest rebukes of an accreditor that the panel typically makes, short of calling on the department to revoke its recognition entirely.”
It was clear from the deliberations that many of the NACIQI members felt that the ACCJC was incapable or unwilling to come into compliance. However, they were fearful of the vacuum that would result if ACCJC were de-listed. If they could have seen an easy path to a new accreditor to replace ACCJC, most likely they would have revoked ACCJC’s recognition.
Brice Harris has asked the Board of Governers to outline a plan by March 2016.
Read more at: