The threat comes less than three months after Columbia caved to a list of demands from the president over alleged antisemitism.
Sara Boboltz at HuffPost:
The Department of Education on Wednesday announced that Columbia University “no longer appears” to meet accreditation standards due to student protests over Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza, threatening the Ivy League institution’s accreditation status.
President Donald Trump and his administration argue that the protests constitute antisemitism and have been using the issue as ammunition in a culture war against elite institutions of higher education.
The Department of Education does not issue accreditation itself. Rather, it recognizes accrediting agencies, such as the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, of which Columbia is a member.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon pressured the Middle States Commission in a statement.
“Accreditors have an enormous public responsibility as gatekeepers of federal student aid. They determine which institutions are eligible for federal student loans and Pell Grants,” she said.
The Middle States Commission will now have to come up with a plan to address the issues. If Columbia does not cooperate, its accreditation could be revoked.
[...]
Trump canceled a whopping $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University back in March. While the school capitulated to the president’s demands, it did not result in a restoration of the funding; an additional $250 million in funds from the National Institutes of Health were frozen later.
This is fascism in action: The Trump Regime begins the process of revoking accreditation for Columbia University, using the Gaza Genocide protests as cover for revoking funding to the school under the pretext of “stopping antisemitism.”
This is the same university that stupidly caved to Traitor Tot’s demands.
See Also:
Daily Kos: Here’s the terrible new way Trump plans to illegally harass universities
Y'all regularly send in questions wanting to know how to report concerns you've observed at zoos you've visited. I've been able to point people at the USDA (regulatory) option, but with regard to accrediting groups I haven't had a good answer. I spent the last six months or so really digging into why there hasn't been a good answer. What I've found is that the majority of zoological accrediting groups in the United States don't provide any way for the public to report issues they've observed at accredited facilities, and none of said organizations have a mechanism for truly supporting / protecting staff who might choose to report issues at their own facilities. Which is. not great.
I wrote a whole Substack post about it a few days ago, arguing that in order to remain credible institutions accrediting groups must facilitate public reporting, anonymous reporting, and commit to enforcing penalties for any retaliation against staff who choose to utilize the option. I'm linking it below for anyone who is interested in all the details. CW at the beginning for animal abuse mentions - I started the piece by discussing a truly egregious welfare situation that occurred last year at a Miami facility, which might have been prevented or at least caught earlier if the two groups that accredit the facility had had a reporting mechanism in place.
What I want to talk about here, though, is specifically why accrediting orgs need to not only have an anonymous reporting option for staff, but why they must ban retaliation and penalize any facility that does it anyway. Whenever something terrible happens at a zoo or sanctuary, people always ask "why didn't the staff say something?" And the answer is, basically, because taking that risk can get you not just fired, but blacklisted from the field. People literally end up having to choose between their careers and making noise about issues that aren't being resolved, and that's absolutely not freaking okay. But I want to explain for you the extent of the issue.
If you're not industry, something you might be surprised to learn is that most zoo staff don't have any special reporting options above and beyond what the public does. Most zookeepers and other low-level staff never interact with people from accrediting groups except during an actual inspection - so if there's a problem, it's not like they know someone they can back-channel a concern to if they don't feel safe reporting it publicly. And for the most part, reporting things your facility is doing to an accrediting group will always be considered inappropriate and probably get a keeper in trouble (even if it's a really valid issue).
The zoological industry runs on a strongly hierarchical system. Staff are expected to “stay within their lanes” and work within the established bureaucracy to resolve issues. Deviating from this, if staff feel like management are suppressing issues or something needs to be addressed urgently, is very heavily frowned upon. Basically, going around management to bring something to an accrediting group (or USDA, or the media) is seen as indicating that your facility has failed to address a problem, or that the individual making the report feels they know more than their superiors. At most places, no matter how extreme an issue may become, there's never a point at which it would be acceptable for a staff member to reveal a facility’s internal issues to their accrediting body.
The thing is, attempting to resolve issues through the proper internal channels at a facility doesn't always work! It can result in an issue being covered up (especially if the company is kinda shady) or suppressed rather than addressed. If staff decide to push the issue, it can really backfire and jeopardize their job, because it's expected that if management says something is fine, staff need to acquiesce and go along with it.
There have been a couple high-profile examples of this in the last decade: the incident I mention in my Substack where new management at the Miami Seaquarium decided to starve dolphins to coerce them into participating in guest programs, and an issue at the Austin Zoo five-ish years ago where the director was perpetuating serious welfare issues and ignoring staff feedback. In both cases, there's always the questions of where the accrediting group was. We don't know anything about what happened with the Seaquarium (it's been over six months since the USDA report documenting the diet cuts was released and AMMPA and American Humane haven't said a thing), but I remember hearing that ZAA had no idea what was happening at Austin because nobody had reached out to them about it.
This is why I'm arguing that all zoological accrediting groups need to make visible reporting options and make sure staff feel safe enough to use them! If you've got a facility perpetuating or not dealing with major issues, it's pretty probable that they're going to be unhappy if their staff reports those issues to any oversight body. That's not a situation where it's currently safe to speak up right now - and four out of five zoological accrediting groups in the US don't have standards prohibiting retaliation against staff for bringing up issues like that! (Surprisingly, it's not AZA. It's the sanctuary accrediting group, GFAS). Without any option for internal reporting, issues may not get addressed - which hurts animal welfare - or people risk losing their job, possibly their entire career in the field (which is a huge part of people's identities!), and their financial stability to advocate for their animals.
Currently, the two accrediting groups that do have reporting options (AZA and GFAS) stay they'll attempt to keep reports anonymous, but acknowledge it may not be possible to do so. (Which tracks, because zoo jobs are highly specialized and only a few people may be exposed to an issue). However, only GFAS prohibits facilities from retaliating against people who make reports. On top of that, there's absolutely no transparency about what happens next: GFAS, ZAA, AMMPA and AH have no information about how the process transpires and if someone making a report will get any information back about what happened. AZA straight up says that all accreditation stuff is proprietary (read: confidential) so you just have to trust that they dealt with it appropriately. Just yeet your report into the void and hope the groups doing oversight handle it correctly when there's no accountability? That's... not a great look for animal welfare concerns.
I hope the industry chooses to fix this problem. I hope it chooses to invest in transparency and increased credibility. I don't know what I expect, but I'd like to see these accrediting groups do the right thing.
My full write-up on how accrediting groups in the US handle reporting and concerns (or don't) is linked below.
No accrediting group in the United States provides a way for staff and the public to anonymously report concerns.
Columbia University No Longer Meets Accreditation Standards Over Discrimination Violations - i24NEWS
Columbia University no longer meets accreditation standards after violating federal anti-discrimination laws, U.S. Department of Education s
The U.S. Department of Education announced Wednesday that Columbia University is no longer in compliance with federal accreditation standards, following a finding that the institution violated federal anti-discrimination laws.
In a formal notice to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (MSCHE) — Columbia’s official accrediting body — the Department stated that the Ivy League university is currently failing to meet the standards required for accreditation. This failure stems from Columbia’s handling of antisemitism on campus, which the Department found to be in violation of federal civil rights protections.
The Office for Civil Rights, a division within the Department of Education, concluded that Columbia’s conduct has compromised its eligibility under accreditation standards that ensure academic quality, institutional integrity, and compliance with federal law.
MSCHE, which accredits higher education institutions across the Mid-Atlantic region, is now expected to review Columbia’s standing and determine whether corrective action is needed. The accrediting agency plays a key role in determining which schools maintain access to Title IV federal student aid programs, including Pell Grants, federal student loans, and work-study funding.
Only institutions accredited by Department-recognized bodies such as MSCHE are eligible to receive such federal funding — a key resource for students.
This development marks a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s broader scrutiny of campus responses to antisemitism and discrimination. While the specific incidents leading to the violation have not been publicly detailed, the Department’s findings indicate systemic issues with how Columbia has responded to concerns raised by students and faculty.
Columbia University has not yet issued a public response. The MSCHE is expected to evaluate the notice and may require the university to submit a compliance plan or face possible sanctions, including loss of accreditation.
If Columbia ultimately loses its accreditation, the consequences would be severe, limiting student access to federal aid and potentially impacting the institution’s academic reputation and operations.
Qui m’a offert cette chance inestimable de partager ce moment si précieux, autour de la musique, avec le public et avec elle, qui me tient tant à cœur.
Republicans don't want you to be educated because it's usually the ignorant and the gullible who believe their bullshit and conspiracy theories.
In a video posted on his website last week, Trump pledged to "fire the radical Left accreditors" and hire new ones "who will impose real standards on colleges."
° Some of those standards would include "protecting free speech," "removing all Marxist diversity, equity, and inclusion bureaucrats," and "implementing college entrance and exit exams to prove that students are actually learning and getting their money's worth."
° Last month, DeSantis sued the Biden administration over the college accreditation system, alleging it's unconstitutional, Inside Higher Ed reports. Students who receive federal aid must attend an accredited college or university.
Donald Trump, the founder and namesake of Trump University, is not a fan of accreditation. For Trump, a "university" is an opportunity to scam people and then pocket some loot.
Ron DeSantis, like Vladimir Putin, simply doesn't like any information system which he can't directly control; he feels nobody should challenge his view that slavery was "beneficial" to its victims.
Of course the GOP finds college loan forgiveness horrifying. In their view, if you're not rich and don't have a daddy to bribe an admissions officer then you should be working at sub-minimum wage for an Earth-unfriendly corporation owned by a Republican megadonor.
The GOP has embraced the role of being the anti-youth party. Maybe GOP really means the "Get Off my Party!"
Vivek Ramaswamy, currently in third place for the Republican nomination, wants to raise the voting age to 25. Ramaswamy is the youngest of the candidates for the nomination, but that doesn't mean he'd be any good for young people. He's essentially Trump with a Cincinnati accent.
It's an irony that the oldest president of the United States, Joe Biden, is more pro-youth than anybody in the Republican Party. Biden is exponentially better on issues which matter to younger voters: reproductive freedom, affordable college, income inequality, LGBTQ+ rights, climate/environment, ending racism, and decent healthcare.
It's not age but personal attitude which ultimately determines political philosophy. 37-year-old Vivek Ramaswamy and 44-year-old Ron DeSantis have the political equivalent of advanced dementia when it comes to positions on policies relating to younger voters.
