Authors’ Note: This article was written and accepted for publication utilizing CHEA’s Recognition Standards approved on October 4, 2021. On September 29, 2025, CHEA approved an updated set of Recognition Standards, removing its DEI statement and DEI language from Standard 3.A. Please visit the following link for a PDF version of the complete reference list, including archived links of the 2021 version of the Recognition Standards: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1o4M4lDEZQUb7Rd5tfM2OdTqCriFfbuPP/view
Introduction
On March 17 of 2025, the Journal of Teaching in Social Work published a Special Issue, titled “Beyond Ideological Mandates: Critical Reflections on Anti-Racist and Anti-Oppressive Social Work Education,” which sought to assess claims that social work education is steeped in a progressive ideology that undermines the profession’s effectiveness. Alongside twenty-six fellow contributors, we made our own respective cases for rebalancing what we, as two former graduate students, saw as the profound lack of humanism and practicality in social work classrooms. One of our articles, published as “Out of Balance: Moving Beyond Anti-Racist and Anti-Oppressive Education,” called into question the main source of these shortfalls: the Council for Social Work Education’s (CSWE) stereotyped, skill-stripping, and ideologically tilted mandates in the 2022 Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS). Bathed in a particular view of social justice, the EPAS document comprises the curricular backbone for American social work programs––at least until the 2029 version is published.
Soon after the publication of the Special Issue, on April 23, the Trump administration issued its own directive to address questions in educational quality by executive order (EO), titled “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education.” The administration pressed the Department of Education (ED) to compel accreditation agencies to reform away from directly promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), specifically calling on the Secretary of Education to “realign accreditation with high-quality, valuable education.”
At first glance, organizations such as the CSWE would appear to be subject to increased scrutiny as the sole accrediting body for social work programs across the country. However, as we dove deeper into policy and history, we realized that there is more to the story that social work students, faculty, and professionals are likely unaware of—in particular, other “powers that be” that allow the ideological tilt of social work programs to go unchecked and potentially remain untouched by the recent EO.
CSWE & US Higher Education Accreditation
In the United States, bachelor- and masters-level social work programs are accredited by the CSWE, and social work doctoral programs borrow ideas from the organization to help social work education remain consistent. As a national accrediting organization, the CSWE is responsible for ensuring that the country’s estimated 900 social work programs serve three key interests of the public: (1) the interests of the well-being of society; (2) the interests of the competent use of taxpayer’s money; and (3) the interests of financial value for aspiring social work professionals.
The significance of the CSWE’s scope cannot be overstated—the organization is one of the most substantial accrediting agencies in the country and affects over 140,000 social work students, many of whom enter the workforce and comprise the largest percentage of the mental health profession. The American social work profession as a whole is estimated to consist of over 700,000 professionals.
We initially believed the troubles lay with DEI-sounding anti-racist and anti-oppressive ideas circulating within the CSWE and the 2022 EPAS, which were pushed into graduate education to meet accreditation requirements, and which we both experienced as students. In recent months, however, we uncovered more: it is the corroborating ideological tilt of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA)—a non-profit organization that is perched one level of institutional authority above accrediting bodies like the CSWE—granting the organization the power to accredit American social work programs via a process of “recognition.”
We were surprised—dumbfounded, almost—to discover that CHEA is only one of two national “recognizing” institutions and on equal institutional footing with the other “recognizing” institution—the Department of Education (ED). The independent legitimizing power of CHEA within national higher education is immense: according to a 2023-2024 annual report, CHEA recognizes six regional accreditation organizations, five national faith-related organizations, one institutional organization, and fifty-two programmatic organizations. Indeed, approval by CHEA is what allows the CSWE to claim the title of “the sole accrediting agency for social work education in the United States and its territories.” Immediately, this raised red flags in our minds about accountability, trust, and the precarious private-public accreditation partnership in higher education, the details of which are beyond the scope of this article.
Along the way, we discovered that in the recent past, the CSWE was formally “recognized” by the ED but was later dropped from the Department’s roster without explanation, now rendering the organization ineligible for review and reform under Trump’s April EO on accreditation. We received an email response on April 24 from a staff member within the ED’s Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) confirming that this, indeed, was the case:
Thank you for contacting the U.S. Department of Education (Department) about your experience with Council on Social Work Education (CSWE). Unfortunately, the CSWE is not currently recognized by the Department, so there is no mechanism for us to review the standards of the agency.1
After news of the EO broke, the CSWE’s President released a news bulletin on April 28 in response, applauding the organization’s exclusive CHEA-based recognition that insulates the CSWE from “federal threats against inclusive education” and policy changes enacted by the EO. Hence, as a CHEA-recognized organization, the CSWE must meet CHEA’s Standards for Recognition every seven years, which includes a “rigorous examination” of the organization’s academic quality, accountability, transparency, and internal structure. CHEA is transparent about their examination timeline: the most recent review of CSWE took place on September 30, 2024, with the next review taking place in 2031.
We took note that the 2021 version of CHEA’s Standards open with unmistakable support of DEI principles, a fact conspicuously absent from previous versions:
We believe that the rich values of diversity, equity, and inclusion are inextricably linked to quality assurance in higher education. Additionally, CHEA affirms that diversity, equity, and inclusion contribute to student success and that student success contributes to a better, healthier, and more enlightened, progressive society.
The standards spell out three universal benchmarks that all organizations seeking national accreditation are required to meet, adding a fourth benchmark to accrediting organizations seeking to operate internationally. Beyond CHEA’s simple DEI support statement, here is where we take issue: Standard 3.A: Accreditation Structure and Organization directs each accreditor to explicitly “manifest a commitment to DEI,” an update made to the standards in January 2022. Importantly, six months later, the CSWE’s Commission on Accreditation (COA) and the Board of Directors both approved the organization’s 2022 EPAS, partially explaining2 the document’s explicit language updates around Anti-Racism, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (ADEI) in Competencies 2.0 and 3.0, Educational Policies 2.0 and 3.0, and Accreditation Standard 2.0.
Zooming out to the bigger picture, we see a three-tier, single-column organizational hierarchy (see Appendix A for a visual) between the three main institutional players in social work education: CHEA, CSWE, and university-level social work programs. It is this column of vertical permission structures we are particularly concerned about, given that the CSWE is recognized only by CHEA, not the ED:
- A “permission structure” can be described as an “emotional and psychological justification that allows someone to change deeply held beliefs and/or behaviors.”
- At the top, CHEA offers the CSWE a top-down “permission structure” in its Recognition Standards that trickle down and influence the development of the content of CSWE’s Accreditation Standards and 2022 EPAS.
- In the middle, the CSWE provides “permission structures” for schools of social work across the country through its Accreditation Standards to adopt particular versions of truth, social justice, and DEI ideologies that are, then, conveyed in classrooms as part of the mandated 2022 EPAS curriculum.
- Down at the bottom, students sit underneath social work programs’ “permission structure” that justifies and compels them to believe and adopt social justice and DEI ideologies, which are then carried out into social work clinical, community, policy practice.
In short: we worry about the effects of CHEA as an “independent,” self-regulating DEI-infused recognition body granting legitimacy to the CSWE, another DEI-infused, subordinate accreditation body for every social work program in the country. A worry, to be sure, that is not new: Barry Latzer sounded the alarm in the mid-2000’s following his review of several social work education programs and their respective handbooks, mission statements, and curricula. He concluded: “Reckoned against traditional academic ideals of open-inquiry, partisan disengagement, and intellectual pluralism, the results are scandalous.”3
The Tangled Mess
We find it important to illustrate an additional quagmire that shows readers the fuzzy distinction between CHEA’s role vs. the Department of Education’s for accreditors. The following is what we have found.
- CHEA recognition affirms that an accreditor meets standards for academic quality and accountability set by the higher education community. Recognition by CHEA is voluntary4 and focuses on academic standards rather than federal funding eligibility.
- Department of Education (ED) recognition allows accreditors to serve as gatekeepers for federal student aid and other federal programs. Institutions accredited by ED-recognized agencies can participate in federal financial aid programs.
This was clarified by another email response from a staff member with the Department of Education, who stated:
When an agency is not recognized by the Department, that means that we do not review the agency for compliance with our statutes and regulations. However, this does not necessarily mean that the accrediting agency is not a “good” one. What it usually means is that the agency does not have a federal link that would require Department recognition. For CSWE, I’m going to assume that all of the programs accredited by that agency are housed within institutions that hold institutional accreditation. That institutional accrediting agency provides the access to Title IV, HEA funding, such as Pell Grants and Direct Loans, so there is no reason for CSWE to be recognized by the Department to access those funding programs.
In short, although CSWE accreditation alone does not grant social work programs access to federal funding, these programs are usually housed within universities accredited by U.S. Department of Education–recognized agencies—which allows them access to federal aid programs.
The social work program at Colorado State University, an alma mater of both authors, is a good example of how this works. CSU is accredited by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC),5 one of the seven regional accreditors recognized by the Department of Education. While CSU’s social work program is accredited by the CSWE, which is recognized only by the CHEA, it still has access to federal aid programs through CSU’s accreditation.
The Misleading Tilt of DEI
It is now worth expounding upon concerns we and others echoed in the Special Issue: we all collectively worry about what these unchecked, institutionalized vertical permission structures will continue to allow through the ideologically tilted ethos in social work higher education—an academic discipline feeding into a profession with hundreds of thousands of jobs making up the largest segment of the mental health workforce in the U.S. Together, we have deduced a CHEA- and CSWE-backed closed system of particular versions of truth, social justice, and DEI that converge into an interrelated set of loosely progressive frameworks, collectively labeled by scholars as “critical social justice (CSJ)” and its permutations:
- Critical social justice (CSJ): the obsession “with power, language, knowledge, and the relationship between them … This is a worldview that centers social and cultural grievances and aims to make everything into a zero-sum political struggle revolving around identity markers like race, sex, gender, sexuality and many others.”
- The identity synthesis: a framework that prioritizes group identities (e.g., race, gender, and sexual orientation) as the preferred lenses for understanding social dynamics and structuring political action.
- Social justice fundamentalism (SJF): the focus on group identities in an authoritarian way as opposed to liberal social justice, the focus on individual rights.
- Identity politics: “political activity and theorizing founded in the shared experiences of injustice of members of certain social groups … identity political formations typically aim to secure the political freedom of a specific constituency marginalized within its larger context” with the added risk that a preoccupation with identity will maintain economic and class-based inequalities.
- Social justice leftism (SJL): an ideological movement that arose predominantly in the university setting that emphasizes identity markers, rejects identity-neutral justice, utilizes the idea of “concept creep” to express grievances, and “exaggerate[s] claims of identitarian victimization.”
- The postmodern/critical theory (PCT) movement: “the framing of the world as a struggle between oppressor and oppressed groups” and the “landscape mov[ing] from class to identity.”
- Symbolic capitalists and asymmetric multiculturalism: the tendency to adopt or advocate for identities (e.g., neurodivergent, disabled, BIPOC) to gain moral authority and social leverage, and to organize around identity.
These ideologies convey an authoritarianism and cognitive rigidity as to what constitutes “truth” and what particular kind of “social justice” should be sought. Each definition uses “identity” as a common thread and is tethered to a simplistic binary conceptualization of the social world and human action. Put together, this is the inflexible, CSJ-infused ethos we worry predominates social work programs across the country—one that will continue to reign supreme unless CHEA and the CSWE reform from within to encourage legitimate intellectual pluralism (hence our endorsement of reforms in Section 3 [iii] of the recent EO).
For its part, CHEA tries to get itself off the hook by arguing that Standard 3.A “does not dictate how accreditors should manifest their commitment” to DEI.6 But the organization gives its particular vision away in the Standards’ DEI Statement by seeking “a better, healthier, and more enlightened, progressive society.”7
This is clearly a subjective exercise.
“Better” is an ethically loaded term, raising competing social and political conceptions of the good life and social flourishing. “Health” and “healthier” are far from being clearly defined. Most egregiously, CHEA falsely assumes that students in every accredited field—whether social work, construction, veterinary medicine, aviation, nursing, firefighting, or landscaping—are united by a single progressive vision of society. Claville, 8 CHEA’s Vice President for Research and Policy Analysis, claims to have marshalled an array of evidence demonstrating that DEI “enhances quality in higher education.” But the evidence suggests the opposite. Lee Jussim9 published a damning compendium summarizing evidence against the utility of DEI. Strom and Lieberman10 argue that social work educators play destructive anti-racism, diversity, equity, and inclusion (ADEI) word games without considering, as Gambrill11 alludes, that clients have real lifebasic needs and economic issues they must first deal with. Mills12 predicts that continued investment in DEI will only lead to declining public trust in social work and an increase in ethics complaints and lawsuits as social workers lose the skills to work with overlooked populations.
This includes individuals trying to navigate issues of censorship, antisemitism, religion, masculinity, anti-male bias, anti-White bias, political conflict within families, gun ownership, and heterodoxy around anti-racism, LGBTQ culture, and transgender matters. Farber,13 one of the co-editors of the Special Issue, gave a warning based on her observations, stating that:
[S]elected means of coercing this political obeisance through academic accreditation, intellectual gatekeeping by professional organizations and their peer-reviewed journals, and the enthusiasm of schools of social work to adopt or even amplify the reach of such compulsion … threaten the value of a once-respectable profession as successive cohorts of social workers enter the field prepared to act more as social justice warriors than trustworthy providers of important services to vulnerable people.
And to borrow an oft-used phrase within the contemporary DEI and CSJ zeitgeist, let us not forget about students’ “lived experiences” in academia, as illustrated by our own stories.14 One of us argued that time spent on “moral education” and DEI/CSJ overshadowed time spent on skills applicable to clinical, community, and policy social work practice. Now, given the opportunity, we extend an assertion in that article that social work education is grounded in both “luxury beliefs”15 and over-priced luxury activities, a term we use to describe pointless exercises in the classroom that have little to no bearing on real-world, professional decision-making.
It appeared to both of us that social work faculty take their outsized privilege of tenure and job security for granted, wasting precious time discussing DEI and CSJ “discourse” in a time in the United States when violence against social workers is rising,16 drug overdose remains the leading cause of death for 18-44 year old Americans,17 and mental health funding is being slashed left and right.18 With recent experiences in higher education and years of actual work experience in the healthcare space, we can see how and why the term symbolic capitalist came to be coined: we’ve seen firsthand the blatant disconnect between what educators so love to pontificate about in the ivory tower versus what we witness in direct patient and client care on a daily basis.
Future Recommendations
Overweighting rigid DEI and CSJ principles in the American social work classroom in the name of self-righteous good intentions does not have to be the future of the field. Nor does deskilling the profession,19 which currently comes at the cost of lower quality social work practice.20 With this, we see multiple ways the educational scales can be rebalanced to uphold students’ and faculty members’ viewpoint diversity and sense of ethical integrity.
First, we encourage affected social work students, educators, and professionals to partner with the CSWE to advocate for eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion mandates or, at the very least, broadening them to embrace differences in viewpoint and political orientation.21 To do this, social workers must retrieve the lost language of liberalism from the swamp of critical social justice (CSJ), which will shift our attention away from CSJ’s entrenched utopianism, despair, and social division.
Second, as the CSWE prepares for the upcoming 2029 EPAS and rolls out its new Doctorate of Social Work (DSW) program standards, we call on the organization to back academic freedom, viewpoint diversity, and value diversity without stamping the whole field with a singular set of CHEA-backed “enlightened, progressive” DEI values. We call on the leadership team to make good on its “commitment to the preparation of social work students and a workforce that is well-equipped to serve everyone,”22 including those that think differently about race, social justice, power, equality, political order, and rights.
Third, to counter conformist groupthink in the CSWE and the profession, we contend the field must seriously grapple with Hayek’s forgotten claim that the concept of “social justice” is “empty and meaningless.”23 In societies that advance personal freedom, Hayek asserts, social justice becomes (1) meaningless, (2) religious, (3) self-contradictory, (4) ideological, (5) unfeasible, and (6) disastrous24—six descriptors, in our view, we could just as easily apply to such related concepts as anti-racism, anti-oppression, diversity, equity, and inclusion.25
Fourth, despite our narrowed focus on academia in this essay, guidelines for practitioners in the field also deserve heightened scrutiny, especially given their immense presence in the workforce and helping professions. While the National Association of Social Workers’ (NASW) Code of Ethics seems fairly tempered, the organization has not only a separate webpage dedicated to DEI,26 but DEI and CSJ-like ideologies are now embedded within its recently published “Standards for Clinical Social Work in Social Work Practice.”27 This formalized infusion of DEI and CSJ in clinical social work practice has the potential to foster what Redding and Satel28 describe as “Social Justice Counseling (SCJ),” which they fervently oppose: the SJC clinician “violates core tenets of sound and ethical psychotherapy when their therapy work is driven by a commitment to furthering their own political causes or grinding a political axe” by dichotomizing clients into “oppressor” or “oppressed” groups based on identity markers. They add:
The social justice therapist can significantly enhance overall treatment effectiveness by … helping him or her to access services and working with others to address troubling aspects of the client’s life. Yet, if it is a mistake to assume that a client’s problems are mostly intrapsychic … it is equally mistaken to assume that they are mostly due to environmental pathologies or systemic “oppression.”
Fifth and finally, at a time when trust in American higher education continues to plummet, we call on social work faculty and professionals with diverse viewpoints to press for accountability in CHEA’s self-regulation process and protection of the public interest, starting with questions asked by Alexander and Finkin:29 Is CHEA reliable? Does CHEA assure quality social work education? Has CHEA actually prevented centralized viewpoint control of education? Who watches the watchman?
Otherwise, as the public becomes more aware of mandated ideology CHEA faces a simmering legitimacy crisis and could go the way of its predecessor, the Council for Postsecondary Accreditation (COPA) in 1993, only to be completely dissolved. Summing up our point about the bridge between CHEA’s and CSWE’s Standards, Latzer concluded his scathing review from nearly two decades ago this way:
We rightly expect all professions that deal with the human condition to be grounded in genuine sympathy. But we also rightly expect those professions to recognize and teach the importance of the continuing search for the truth, the need to listen to alternative views, and the need to seek objective bases for best practice….
Thus it is unacceptable when schools of social work define the substance of what they teach in terms of prescribed answers to important questions that are in fact unsettled.… [S]chools of social work are betraying the pursuit of knowledge and systematically perverting the education of their students. This … constitutes a genuine academic scandal.30
Thus, without meaningful reform towards intellectual pluralism, the country’s widely admired practice-based profession runs the risk of hardening a progressive “tyranny of the ideal,”31 and undermining two pillars of true higher education: the trinity of cognitive liberty, free speech, and public reason; and the ethical architecture of a genuinely open American society.
Are social work and higher education up to the challenge?
Appendix A: CHEA and Department of Education “Permission Structures”
Nathan Gallo is a Master’s of Social Work graduate and hospital nursing assistant based in northern Colorado. He has written about intellectual freedom, tolerance, and cognitive liberty in social work education and decision-making tensions for individuals pursuing aid in dying in the United States.
Arnoldo Cantú LCSW is a clinical social worker and psychotherapist residing in northern Colorado with experience in school social work, private practice, community mental health. He is currently working in primary care behavioral health seeing children, adolescents, families, and adults. Cantú has written critically about the idea of so-called mental disorder as well as “race” categories.
1Accrediting agencies undergo review through the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI). See https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/higher-education-laws-and-policy/college-accreditation/accrediting-agencies-under-review.
2 Language updates also likely came from anti-racist recommendations produced by the Educational Policy and Accreditation Workgroup in the 2020 CSWE Task Force to Advance Anti-Racism.
3 Although this is the case, the organization makes a pointed argument from necessity: “Other than CHEA recognition, there is no other external process available in the private sector dedicated to assuring and improving the quality of accrediting organizations.”
4 See https://www.ir.colostate.edu/accreditation/.
5 We thank Paula Clark for the phrase and her brief comparison with Canadian social work education.
6 We thank Dr. Nafees Alam for originating the language of the idea.
7 See https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Diversity-Equity-and-Inclusion.
8 Barry Latzer, “The Scandal of Social Work Education,” National Association of Scholars, September 11, 2007. https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/the_scandal_of_social_work_education, 24.
9Michelle Claville, “DEI as a Transformational Catalyst for Higher Education and Public Good,” Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), June 4, 2024.
10 “2021 CHEA Standards and Procedures for Recognition,” 2021, https://www.chea.org/chea-standards-and-procedures-recognition, 2.
11 Claville, “DEI as a Transformational Catalyst for Higher Education and Public Good.”
12 Lee Jussim, “The Downsides of DEI,” Unsafe Science, March 30, 2025.
13Kimberly Strom and Alice Lieberman, “Deck Chairs on the Titanic.,” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 45, no. 2 (2025): 384-392, https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2025.2469563.
14 Eileen Gambrill, “How Strategic Ignorance Contributes to Missed Opportunities to Enhance Social Justice,” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 45, no. 2 (2025): 276-297. https://doi-org/10.1080/08841233.2025.2469524.
15 Jon Mills, “A Critique of Antiracist Ideology,” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 45, no. 2 (2025): 393-415. https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2025.2469554.
16 Naomi Farber, “The Dystopian World of Social Work Education,” Academic Questions 36, no. 4 (2023): 17-25, https://doi.org/10.51845/36.4.5, 18.
16 Arnoldo Cantú, “A Case for Intellectual Humility, Tolerance, and Humanism: Perspectives from an Ethnically ‘Minoritized’ Graduate Student,” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 45, no. 2 (2025): 188-215, https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2025.2469539; Jordan the Social Worker [pseudonym], “Out of Balance: Moving Beyond Anti-Racist & Anti-Oppressive Education.” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 45, no. 2 (2025): 216-232, https://doi.org/10.1080/08841233.2025.2469538.
18 Rob Henderson, Troubled: A Memoir of Foster Care, Family, and Social Class (Gallery Books, 2024); Yascha Mounk, “Luxury Beliefs are Real,” Yascha Mounk, July 25, 2024, https://yaschamounk.substack.com/p/luxury-beliefs-are-real.
19 NASW, “Social Worker Safety,” 2022.; Conor J. O’Brien, André AJ van Zundert, and Paul R. Barach, “The Growing Burden of Workplace Violence against Healthcare Workers: Trends in Prevalence, Risk Factors, Consequences, and Prevention–A Narrative Review.” EClinicalMedicine 72 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2024.102641.
20CDC, “CDC Reports Nearly 24% Decline in U.S. Drug Overdose Deaths,” February 25, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2025/2025-cdc-reports-decline-in-us-drug-overdose-deaths.html.
21 Jan Hoffman, “Federal Agency Dedicated to Mental Illness and Addiction Faces Huge Cuts.” New York Times, March 12, 2025; Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Trump’s Budget Calls for Deep Cuts to Public Health Programs and Research, New York Times, May 2, 2025.
22 Eileen Gambrill, “How Strategic Ignorance Contributes to Missed Opportunities to Enhance Social Justice,” Journal of Teaching in Social Work 45, no. 2 (2025): 276-297. https://doi-org/10.1080/08841233.2025.2469524;“Deck Chairs on the Titanic.”
23 Halaevalu F. Vakalahi, “From the President: Understanding Federal Threats Against Inclusive Education,” Council for Social Work Education (CSWE), April 28, 2025.
24 Friedrich A. Hayek, Law, Legislation, and Liberty, Vol. 2: The Mirage of Social Justice. (University of Chicago Press, 1976), xi.
25Steven Lukes, “Social Justice: the Hayekian Challenge,” Critical Review: A Journal of Politics and Society 11, no. 1 (1997): 65-80, https://doi.org/10.1080/08913819708443444.
26 Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), “Council for Higher Education (CHEA) Equity Survey,” 2023, https://www.chea.org/sites/default/files/other-content/Claville_Final.pdf.
27 NASW, NASW Standards for Clinical Social Work in Social Work Practice, 2025.
28 Richard E. Redding and Sally Satel, “Social Justice in Psychotherapy and Beyond,” In Ideological and Political Bias in Psychology: Nature, Scope, and Solutions, ed. Craig L. Frisby, Richard E. Redding, William T. O’Donohue, and Scott O. Lilienfeld (Springer International Publishing, 2023), 513-539, 524.
29 Suzannah Alexander, “Higher Ed’s Reform Problem Isn’t Political–It’s Psychological, April 7, 2025, https://www.diogenesinexile.com/p/higher-eds-reform-problem-isnt-politicalits; Matthew Finkin, “Who Watches the Watchman? Thoughts on the Federal Relationship to Accreditation in Higher Education,” Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), 2009.
30 Latzer, “The Scandal of Social Work Education.”
31 Gerald Gaus, The Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice in a Diverse Society (Princeton University Press, 2016).
Photo “P20250424AM-0133” by The White House, United States Government Work