The Credentialing Cartels Are Facing Their Reckoning

Last week the Department of Education dropped a bombshell: a sweeping report that basically asks the federal government to yank the American Bar Association’s (ABA) authority to accredit law schools. The argument is that the ABA’s accreditation arm isn’t truly independent, that it pushes a set of ideological standards that many see as more political than professional.

I’m writing this from a very odd place – I’ve been a med‑school student, a resident, a practicing physician, a law student, and today I sit on a Maryland bench as a judge. When a credential‑granting body starts caring more about a particular worldview than about competence, you start to worry about the value of that credential.

The same playbook unfolded in the world of medicine just a year ago. The White House signed an executive order aimed at the Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME), the group that, together with the AMA, decides which medical schools get a stamp of approval. Critics said the LCME had slipped into the business of enforcing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) metrics that were, frankly, beyond the scope of pure medical education.

Faced with the prospect of losing federal student‑aid eligibility and Medicare‑funded residency slots, the LCME quickly stripped away the most controversial language – standard 3.3 vanished, along with mandates that forced schools to embed “systemic bias” curricula. It was a pragmatic move: keep the money flowing, keep the schools alive.

The ABA now stands at a similar crossroads. Within days of the education department’s report hitting the press, the ABA’s Council on Legal Education began debating whether to drop a rule that required cultural‑competency coursework. The idea is simple – if the federal government says, “Don’t make this a condition for accreditation,” then the ABA either complies or risks being stripped of its accreditation monopoly.

But it’s not that easy. The ABA’s broader policy body, the House of Delegates, actually voted to keep the DEI rules, despite the department’s clear warning. That means we’re looking at a prolonged, possibly bitter, internal fight before any decision lands.

Critics of federal involvement argue that it tramples on institutional autonomy and turns education into a political battleground. Yet, the accreditation process has already become highly politicized. When the yardsticks shift from hard‑core measures – bar passage rates, clinical skill assessments, scientific literacy – to softer, ideology‑driven checklists, the original purpose gets lost.

From my perspective as a physician, a doctor’s primary responsibility is to treat patients, not to champion a particular social agenda in the classroom. When medical schools trimmed the DEI‑heavy requirements, they could refocus on what truly matters: producing competent physicians.

And from the bench, I see that the legal system thrives on open, adversarial debate. That conversation stalls when a single authority tells everyone what to think or say, under threat of losing their license to teach.

Bottom line: the ABA should line up its policies with the federal guidelines now. If it resists, the Department of Education should follow through on its recommendation to pull the accreditation plug. Breaking the monopoly will open the door for alternative accrediting bodies, restoring a merit‑based system that rewards real competence over prescribed viewpoints.

— Eric Wargotz, M.D., judge, clinical professor emeritus, and former president of the Maryland State Medical Society.