RED FLAG ALERT: UWF Faculty Senate raises concerns

The University of West Florida’s Faculty Senate has released a comprehensive report highlighting significant concerns about new Board Trustee Adam Kissel’s proposed amendment to UWF’s Regulation 3.003 regarding transfer of credit policies.

Why This Matters: The report warns that while the amendment aims to expand access for transfer students, it could ultimately create more problems than benefits for the university’s transfer population.  Read UWF Faculty Senate Report on BOT Amendment to Transfer Credits Regulation.

Key Concerns Identified

The Faculty Senate Executive Committee identified several significant issues with the proposed changes:

1. Slower Processing Times: Broadening credit acceptance would lead to application backlogs and increased manual review requirements, potentially causing prospective students to withdraw their applications and seek other options.
2. Financial Aid Implications: Students with excessive transfer credits could exceed state-mandated credit hour limits, resulting in higher fees and potential loss of Pell Grant eligibility. As the report bluntly states, “If students run out of money, they cannot graduate.”
3. Completion Ratio Impact: Accepting credits that don’t align with UWF’s degree requirements could threaten the university’s completion ratio metrics, affecting federal financial aid eligibility and state accountability measures.
4. Reputation Risk: The amendment could damage UWF’s academic standing by accepting credits from institutions with significantly different standards, potentially deterring employers and future students who value UWF’s consistent quality.
5. Misalignment with DOE’s Role: The report emphasizes that the U.S. Department of Education “does not accredit educational institutions and/or programs” and that relying solely on the DOE list would bypass the thorough standards maintained by established accrediting bodies.

Current System vs. Proposed Changes

Currently, UWF automatically accepts credits from specific accredited institutions whose standards align with UWF and other State University System (SUS) institutions. This process aims to streamline transfers while maintaining quality standards.

• The proposed amendment would significantly broaden this approach, requiring UWF to accept credits from any institution recognized by the U.S. Department of Education. The Faculty Senate argues this would single out UWF among Florida universities, as no other SUS institution has adopted such a broad acceptance policy.

Alternative Recommendation

Rather than rejecting the concept entirely, the Faculty Senate suggests a more measured approach: systematically reviewing and adopting new accrediting bodies based on comparable standards and transfer frequency. They point to UWF’s existing process with Pensacola Christian College and its accrediting body (TRACS) as a model that could be expanded to other institutions with similar standards.

• This alternative would allow UWF to broaden its transfer credit acceptance while maintaining quality control measures that protect both students and the institution’s standing.

The report concludes that while expanding access is a worthy goal, the current proposal risks creating significant unintended consequences for students, faculty, and the university’s overall academic mission. If the government controls accreditation

BOTTOM LINE: If the government and right-wing think tanks control accreditation, they can dictate what’s taught on campuses. They can indoctrinate students.

---

DIG DEEPER According to sources familiar with accreditation, Trustee Kissel’s last-minute amendment may be part of a broader political strategy. The amendment appears connected to efforts to undermine traditional higher education accreditation systems, which some conservative activists have characterized as ineffectual or corrupt.

• In a paper co-authored with Timothy J. Rosenberger, Jr., Kissel argues that accreditors are becoming increasingly politicized, particularly in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies. He views this as an abuse of their quasi-regulatory power. He advocates for a more flexible, competitive accreditation system that focuses on academic quality rather than enforcing specific ideological or governance standards.

MORE RECENTLY: Kissel’s approach may lay the groundwork for legitimizing alternative, politically aligned accrediting bodies. On Monday, The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, a far-right conservative think tank, published his paper on accreditation, “End the Unjust Stratification of Accreditors—Privileging credits from “regionally” accredited colleges doesn’t make sense.”

• He frames his position as pro-student and against elitism, arguing that current policies hurt college “access, cost, completion, diversity, and inclusion.” This rhetoric positions his views as progressive despite the Faculty Senate’s concerns that his amendment may be politically motivated to undermine traditional accreditation systems.

Based on the article, Trustee Kissel holds several clear views about accreditation in higher education:

1. He believes the current accreditation system is deeply flawed: Kissel characterizes accreditation as “something of a farce” that fails in its quality assurance role. He argues that accreditors “rarely sanction an institution on academic grounds” despite poor graduation rates and financial outcomes at many accredited institutions.

2. He opposes the traditional hierarchy between accreditors: Kissel strongly criticizes what he calls the “cartelization” of regional accreditors who divided territories and gained privileged status over national accreditors. He believes this creates an unjust two-tier system where credits from regionally accredited institutions are automatically accepted while equally valid credits from nationally accredited institutions are rejected.

3. He specifically advocates for religious institutions: Kissel expresses particular concern about Christian colleges accredited by TRACS (Transnational Association of Christian Colleges and Schools), claiming they face unfair discrimination in credit transfers compared to even “the worst university in a virtually unknown land.”

4. He frames credit transfer restrictions as financial exploitation: Kissel argues that restrictive credit transfer policies force students to “pay for and take the same courses twice,” characterizing this as an injustice to students that increases costs and extends the time to graduation.

5. He supports the Trump administration’s approach: He approves giving regional accreditors national scope to create competition among accreditors, though he believes institutional policies haven’t caught up with this change.

6. All Department of Education recognized accreditors treated equally: This aligns directly with his proposed UWF amendment. He argues that any institution accredited by a DOE-recognized agency should have its credits and degrees considered equally valid for transfer, graduate admission, and faculty qualifications.

The UWF Board of Trustees will meet at the UWF Conference Center from 9 a.m. to 2 p.m. on Thursday, March 20.