Accreditation of colleges and universities comes in two forms, each with two valences. Institutional accreditation marks institutional quality, while programmatic accreditation marks the quality of particular schools or programs, such as counseling or social work. These marks of approval have both private-sector and public-sector relevance. That is, accreditors are private entities—membership associations whereby the members evaluate one another. At the same time, accreditation is required for public purposes, such as access to federal financial-aid programs and occupational licensure.
For private-sector purposes, Catholic institutions should want to evaluate one another’s institutions and programs according to Catholic values and standards. Meanwhile, Catholic institutions that want access to government-controlled programs also need trustworthy accreditors that respect their religious mission. For both reasons, Catholic institutions should want to form their own accreditors.
The need in some areas is dire. For example, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), which accredits several programs at Catholic institutions, defines “cultural identity,” “diversity,” and “marginalized populations” all with reference to “gender identity” and “sexual identity.” CACREP’s standards under its Section 3 require that
diversity, equity, inclusion [DEI], and critical thinking are integral to counselor preparation and should be infused throughout the curriculum. Diversity refers to all aspects of intersectional and cultural identity.
CACREP does not explicitly protect religious mission, even though applicable law and regulations require protection of religious mission. The Higher Education Act requires that an accreditor “consistently applies and enforces standards that respect the stated mission of the institution of higher education, including religious missions.” The U.S. Department of Education’s regulations require the same.
Why would any traditional Catholic institution want to take the risk of developing a faithful counseling program when CACREP is the default choice in state law—even in reformist states such as North Carolina and Florida?
Under pressure from state and federal anti-DEI directives, in September 2025 CACREP “temporarily” suspended some of its DEI standards (but suspended none of its Section 3 standards). CACREP’s message, however, was clear: As soon as possible, all such standards will return. Indeed, CACREP claimed that DEI is “foundational” and that “counselor education must reflect the realities of the communities counselors serve.”
CACREP may not be compliant with current law and regulations. Does it respect religious mission or not when core elements of Catholic doctrine conflict with DEI requirements?
Why would any traditional Catholic institution want to take the risk of developing a faithful counseling program when CACREP is the default choice in state law—even in reformist states such as North Carolina and Florida?
Counseling is not the only area where Catholic institutions should expect trouble aligning accreditation standards with their Catholic mission. See, perhaps most alarmingly, the standards of the accreditors of programs in social work.
In legal education, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights reports that the American Bar Association “has a pattern of conflict with religious law schools.” Just last year, the ABA
found St. Thomas University College of Law in Miami out of compliance with the nondiscrimination Standard 205(c), likely because the school declined to fund an LGBTQ student group’s Pride Parade trip, citing its Catholic mission. Though subsection (c) explicitly protects religiously affiliated schools’ ability to align policies with their faith, the ABA treated fidelity to Church teaching as a violation of equality. Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier defended the Catholic law school, condemning the move as “discriminatory” and anti-religious, vowing to protect state schools from such overreach. Consequently, on December 5, 2025, the ABA backed off, issuing a public notice concluding that St. Thomas University College of Law was in full compliance.
Two Christian accreditation alternatives, under the acronyms TRACS and ABHE, require adherence to Protestant positions that may be inconsistent with Catholic ones. This leaves faithful Catholic institutions with no current option fully aligned with their mission.
Absent significant new support from legislators and state attorneys general, the only realistic alternative is for groups of Catholic institutions to form their own accreditors, institutional as well as programmatic. This is easier than one may think, particularly under the current Trump Administration, which has reversed the Biden Administration’s intentional thwarting of new accreditors. A small membership association with standards that at least meet the federal minimums is all that’s required, and after a couple of years of accreditation activities, the federal government can recognize the accreditation body.
That won’t be quite the end of the story, though. For full equality of Catholic and non-Catholic accreditation, state laws and regulations, as well as professional associations that default to the monopoly or near-monopoly accreditor, will need to open up their language to include any recognized and relevant accreditor.
Universities that restrict graduate admission, transfer credit, and faculty qualifications on the basis of the accreditor of a student or faculty member’s past institution also will need to recognize any nationally recognized accreditor. For programmatic accreditation unrelated to federal programs, recognition from the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, a private body, also ought to suffice.
Step one, anyway, is to form the new accreditors. Once they exist, it will be much easier to persuade state and federal leaders to let them count. Catholic students and colleges will be grateful.
Adam Kissel is a board member of the National Association of Scholars, a member of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI), and a member of the editorial advisory board of From the Academy. This article should not be construed as representing any organization with which he is affiliated.
From the Academy content may be reproduced with permission. Please write to republish@jamesgmartin.center. All republished articles should include our author’s byline and must prominently name From the Academy as the original publisher.