South Carolina H 3476: Higher education accrediting agencies

Bill Text

2025-2026 Bill 3476 Text of Previous Version (Dec. 06, 2024) - South Carolina Legislature Online 

South Carolina General Assembly
126th Session, 2025-2026

Bill 3476

Indicates Matter Stricken
Indicates New Matter

(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)

A bill

TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING ARTICLE 
3 TO CHAPTER 103, TITLE 59 SO AS TO ENTITLE THE ARTICLE "ACCREDITING AGENCIES"; 
TO PROVIDE NECESSARY DEFINITIONS; AND TO PROVIDE ACCREDITING AGENCIES OF INSTITUTIONS 
OF HIGHER LEARNING IN THIS STATE MAY NOT TAKe ACTION ON ACCREDITATION BASED ON 
CERTAIN FACTORS CONCERNING DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION ENGAGEMENT, DATA, 
OR REQUIRED STATEMENTS; AND TO PROVIDE MEANS OF REDRESS FOR VIOLATIONS.

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that 
federal law requires accrediting agencies meet certain standards in order to be 
recognized as a reliable authority by the federal government, with one such 
standard being that the accrediting agency must require that colleges and 
universities meet certain standards for accreditation, such as assessing 
student achievement, faculty, and grading practices, and with none of the 
standards for colleges and universities including diversity, equity, and 
inclusion (DEI) initiatives; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that, 
nevertheless, in the past several years, accrediting agencies have been 
incorporating DEI requirements into their evaluations of colleges and 
universities; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that 
according to a 2023 report in The Chronicle of Higher Education, six out of the 
seven major regional institutional accreditors "have adopted DEI standards for 
their institutions"; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that the 
primary accrediting agency that accredits law schools now has added a 
requirement that law schools "provide education to law students on bias, 
cross-cultural competency, and racism" at least twice before graduation; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that 
accrediting agencies have issued several "warnings" or "notices of concern" to 
colleges or universities questioning the schools' level of commitment to DEI, 
or put colleges on probation over similar DEI concerns; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds at least 
one accrediting agency has added language to its standards of accreditation 
declaring that to be accredited, a college or university must "make explicit 
its commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion" and "act with intention to 
advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in all of its activities"; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds a report 
observed, "Efforts to meet an accreditor's concerns can be costly for colleges, 
especially for those that already enroll many traditionally underserved 
students"; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that after 
accrediting agencies implemented DEI requirements, colleges and universities 
have instituted "racial bias" programs, such as when the University of 
Connecticut recently announced that all students would be required to take an 
"Anti-Black Racism" course to graduate; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that 
"racial bias" or "anti-racism" efforts frequently advocate that people be 
treated differently based on the color of their skin, which conflicts with this 
state's civil rights laws; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that in 
addition, research suggests that racial bias programs are of limited academic 
value, are expensive and administratively bloated, may actually increase bias 
and stereotyping, and actually increase the percentage of minority students 
that feel unwelcome; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that, 
however, in the view of accreditors pushing DEI, "racial bias" programs are 
positive "programs … that create a favorable environment for students from 
underrepresented groups"; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that a 
requirement for a college to "advance diversity, equity, and inclusion in all 
of its activities" also is likely to restrict the free flow of ideas and 
academic debate, as schools are forced to ensure that "all" of their activities 
advance DEI to remain accredited; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that after 
accrediting agencies implemented DEI requirements, colleges and universities 
also have altered how they make hiring decisions, such as when an internal 
investigative report concluded that a faculty hiring committee at the 
University of Washington reranked three finalist candidates for a position 
based on race rather than qualifications with one of the stated reasons for the 
change being to avoid being "accused of 'not prioritizing DEI,'" and a faculty 
member had stated approvingly that the department was "prioritizing DEI, 
operationalized as focusing on increasing hiring of underrepresented minority 
candidates"; and

 Whereas, the General Assembly finds that 
accrediti