 |
| (From Wikipedia Commons) |
The ACCJC do
not see themselves as vindictive as their critics see them. Instead, they see
themselves as defenders of the faith, guardians of the rules and their own
profession. The ACCJC doesn’t care about demonstrations, politician’s statements, lobbying, bad press, or any amount of“CCSF feel good” stories. They follow an
“institutional mentality” that borders on a cult. The more you criticize or question them, the
more they circle the wagons. This helps
me understand ACCJC’s actions.
Early
warning about ACCJC’s mind set
Interim CCSF
Chanceller Pamala Fisher told a CCSF audience August 14, 2009:
In case you’re tempted to blame the
accredited commission by now I hope you realize the accredited commission looks
just like you, its faculty, staff, its administrators, ordinary people from
ordinary colleges,… By the way the commission does not bend to political power
or political pressure. It doesn’t matter how many rallies we hold, how many
protests, how many sit-ins…the commission will do what the commission will have
to do. That’s its charge and it will do it.
(Excerpted transcription by Rudy Padilla, CCSF Business Instructor)
Failing
CCSF strategy
Our newly
hired Chancellor Arthur Tyler and Special Trustee Robert Argrella, (and likely
President Bruce Harris, Chancellor, California Community Colleges) choose as their strategy
to save CCSF by working within ACCJC’s guidelines. First by appealing the decision to take CCSF’s
accreditation away, and, last resort, request
for a final review, all provided by ACCJC bylaws. In February, ACCJC denied CCSF’s appeal and
reaffirmed their original decision to take the college’s accreditation. All that’s left on the “ACCJC track” is a final
request for a review by a five person ACCJC appointed panel.
Tyler and
Brice have consistently downplayed all efforts to mobilize public or political
support against the ACCJC commission, including the pending court case against
the ACCJC. Last December a SF court granted an injunction against the
ACCJC from disaccrediting CCSF until a trial. Both Tyler and Brice downplayed
this legal option and reaffirmed “working within ACCJC’s rules”. Ironically, their way is a dying long shot and
all that’s left to save CCSF’s accreditation is the upcoming October 2014 courttrial.
 |
| (Wikimedia.org) |
ACCJC - Stacked cards
ACCJC’s appeal
board will be a five member board from a list of seven chosen by ACCJC. The
appeal panel will have the authority to change ACCJC’s decision to take CCSF’s
accreditation to a lesser status like probation. Unfortunately, I doubt such a composed panel will
overturn the work or question the earlier work of their fellow ACCJC
peer-colleagues. The majority of the
panelists will be ACCJC peers and certainly be pure bred ACCJC types steeped
deeply in institutional orthodoxy. No
touchy-feely-soft hearts on this panel. For
all the rallies, public figure posturing, and other frantic arm waving, they simply
fall on deaf ears, the same ears that make up the final appeal panel.
 |
| (Wikimedia.org) |
The long dark tunnel ahead
Nobody
really knows what will happen if the court rules against the ACCJC. Certainly, such a ruling will stop
indefinitely ACCJC’s authority to take CCSF’s accreditation away. This will be a first where an accrediting
body has had their authority curtailed.
Some unanswered questions
If the SF court rules against the ACCJC:
- Will the U.S. Department of Education recognize CCSF as an accredited school and continue to provide CCSF students with financial aid and other types of federal funding?
- Will the State of California continue to provide funding to CCSF as it normally would?
- Will other colleges accept CCSF’s credits and degrees after the court decision?
- Will the court be able to redirect ACCJC to redo its accreditation review process? If so, can ACCJC even render an impartial review after a humiliating court rebuff of their process and authority?
Next: "Know Your Enemy: ACCJC Part Two: Will the ACCJC save itself?"
