To: From: Dan Skinner Re: accreditation violations Date: April 20, 2013 I hope the information provided

will be helpful in learning about the issues. The numbers of the footnotes correspond with the numbers at the beginning of the titles of the attached documents. Some of the documentation is online, and hyperlinks have been provided in the footnotes. Personal documents that were not released with this memo can be verified if you decide to use the information cited. I am willing to meet to answer any follow up questions you may have, and I appreciate you looking into this. INTRODUCTION Many of Wake Forests 7,000 students receive federal student loans. In order to accept federal money, Wake Forest must meet its contractual obligations under a program participation agreement with the Secretary of Education.1 Those obligations include meeting accreditation standards.2 The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACS) is the agency that provides institutional accreditation to Wake Forest University.3 In addition, other agencies provide specialized accreditation.4 For example, the American Bar Association Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (ABA) accredits the Law Schools program of legal education.5 Both accrediting agencies are required by federal law to have an accreditation standard
U.S. ex rel. Hendow v. Univ. of Phoenix, 461 F.3d 1166, 1168 (9th Cir. 2006). The U.S. Secretary of Education recognizes accreditation by SACS Commission on Colleges in establishing the eligibility of higher education institutions to participate in programs authorized under Title IV of the 1998 Higher Education Amendments and other federal programs. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement 37 (December 2009). Title IV governs federal financial aid to students. UC Davis, Title IV Sample Calculations 1 (2009), last visited on April 12, 2013 at http://www.law.ucdavis.edu/current/financial-aid/files/Title-IV-Sample-Calculations.pdf. 3 The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges is the regional body for the accreditation of degree-granting higher education institutions in the Southern states. Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement 1 (December 2009). 4 U.S. Department of Education, Ed.gov, last visited on April 12, 2013 at http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg2.html. 5 U.S. Department of Education, Ed.gov, last visited on April 12, 2013 at http://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditation_pg7.html - law.
2 1

that addresses student complaints.6 The record of written complaints helps ensure Wake Forest is doing what it promised to do in exchange for millions of dollars from student loans (see Footnote 2).7 Federal Requirement 4.5 SACSs standard addressing written complaints is Federal Requirement 4.5: The institution has adequate procedures for addressing written student complaints and is responsible for demonstrating that it follows those procedures when resolving student complaints.8 Each college or school at Wake Forest must meet this requirement. According to SACS, Implicit in every Federal Requirement mandating a policy or procedure is the expectation that the policy or procedure is in writing published in appropriate institutional documents accessible to those affected by the policy or procedure, and implemented and enforced by the institution.9 Standard 512 The ABA also required law schools to establish a policy to address written complaints.10 The requirement, Standard 512, became effective immediately August 8, 2011:11 At its meeting on August 8, 2011, the ABA House of Delegates concurred in changes to [Standards 512] . These changes were required to bring the Section into compliance with United States Department of Education (DOE) regulations. The changes to Standard 512were approved by the Council at its June 2011 meeting to be circulated for Notice and Comment. A public hearing was held on July 8, 2011, and the changes were approved at the Councils August 4-5, 2011, meeting.12

34 C.F.R. 602.16. U.S. ex rel. Hendow v. Univ. of Phoenix, 461 F.3d 1166, 1168 (9th Cir. 2006). 8 Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement 37 (December 2009). 9 Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement 37 (December 2009). 10 Commentary from the American Bar Association Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, page 7 of the pdf, numbered as page 1 (Aug. 17, 2011). 11 Memorandum from the American Bar Association Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, page 1 of the pdf, numbered as page 1 (Aug. 17, 2011). 12 Commentary from the American Bar Association Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, page 7 of the pdf, numbered as page 1 (Aug. 17, 2011).
7

Below is the complete text of the standard:13 Standard 512. Student Complaints Implicating Compliance with the Standards (a) A law school shall establish, publish, and comply with policies with respect to addressing student complaints. (b) A law school shall maintain a record of student complaints submitted during the most recent accreditation period. The record shall include the resolution of the complaints. (c) A complaint is a communication in writing that seeks to bring to the attention of the law school a significant problem that directly implicates the schools program of legal education and its compliance with the Standards. Interpretation 512-1: A law schools policies on student complaints must address, at a minimum, procedures for filing and addressing complaints, appeal rights if any, and timelines. WAKE FORESTS VIOLATIONS Federal Requirement 4.5 and Standard 512 mandate that a record is kept to help accrediting agencies protect consumers, but the law school did not develop a policy to address written complaints about compliance with accreditation standards. Its student complaint policy during the 2011-2012 school year only suggested making a verbal complaint: When students have questions or complaints about law school operations or about the conduct of a faculty member, another student, or a member of the law school staff, they should talk with one of the Associate Deans.14 The policy did not include procedures for actually filing a complaint. If there were procedures administrators used for handling complaints, they were not published. Accreditation standards, timelines, and appeals were not mentioned in the policy at all.

American Bar Association Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure 2011-2012 37 (2011). 14 Wake Forest University School of Law 2011-2012 Student Handbook 43 of pdf (2011). The first paragraph makes a suggestion for students who have a complaint: When students have questions or complaints about law school operations or about the conduct of a faculty member, another student, or a member of the law school staff, they should talk with one of the Associate Deans. The Associate Dean for Administrative and Student Services is generally responsible for student concerns, along with admissions, career and professional development, and law school public relations. The Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs is generally responsible for the academic program, faculty, scheduling, registration, and the Honor Code. The Associate Dean for Information Services is generally responsible for law school technology issues. The second paragraph adds speaking to the professor if the issue is academic, and the last paragraph addresses requests for information about grades.

13

NOTICE OF VIOLATION Suzanne Reynolds, Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs insisted that the law school was meeting Standard 512s requirements when the violation was brought to her attention.15 Her claim was patently false. Interpretation 512-1 provided a non-exclusive list of things that must be included in the published policy.16 Wake Forests policy included none of those things (see above). COMPLAINT TO THE ABA A complaint was filed with the ABA.17 The memo written in support of the complaint was based on the 2011-2012 policy.18 Shortly after the complaint was submitted, Wake Forest released the 2012-2013 Student Handbook, which had a policy that gives the appearance of complying with Standard 512.19 The 2012-2013 policy, however, is the functional equivalent of no policy at all. It appears to be built around a loophole weasel words in 512(c), the definition of a complaint.20 Wake Forests policy allows the law school to use the words significant and directly
Emails from Suzanne Reynolds, Executive Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, to author (Feb. 14, 2012). 16 American Bar Association Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure 2011-2012 37 (2011). Even if Wake Forests policy met the requirements of Interpretation 512-1, it would not satisfy the standard if it was inoperative due to another defect. The standard is a procedural safeguard and intended to protect consumers. Policies made pursuant to the standard must be capable of serving its purpose. The core function of accreditation review is the notion that there are constituencies that rely on the accreditation process for accurate information about accredited programs and institutions, and that, from a consumer protection perspective, the results of accreditation review permit informed judgments to be made about the quality of the accredited institutions. Donald Polden, Dean of Santa Clara University School of Law, Statement of Principles of Accreditation and Fundamental Goals of a Sound Program of Legal Education 1 (May 6, 2009). Polden explained, This overarching purpose of accreditation is reflected in U.S. Department of Education policies for accreditation agencies standards. Section 602.16 states that agencies (such as the ABA) must demonstrate that it has standards that are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the education or training provided by the institutions or programs it accredits. The regulation goes on to specify how an agency meets this requirement, including the agencys publication and enforcement of accreditation standards that address the quality of the institution or program in the[r]ecord of student complaints received by, or available to, the agency.
17 18 15

The complaint was sent August 17, 2012. A 15 page memorandum in support of the complaint was submitted with it. 19 Wake Forest University School of Law 2012-2013 Student Handbook 43 of pdf (2012). 20 Id.

implicates to decide that a student complaint is not a complaint within the meaning of Standard 512.21 Therefore, it could keep student complaints about violations of the standards from making it into the record. This would frustrate the purpose of the federal regulation. The ABA cannot be a reliable authority about Wake Forests program of legal education if it only sees what the law schools administrators want it to see.22 The 2012-2013 policy also lacks the required timeline.23 It has a timepoint instead. Wake Forest does not have to acknowledge a complaint for six weeks that is the timepoint.24 No other time parameters are given to protect consumers from administrators who may abuse the process and delay the resolution of a complaint.25 This frustrates the purpose of the accreditation process.26 The ABA, however, determined that the law school is currently in compliance, even though Wake Forests policy is not adequate to safeguard consumers.27 Students are almost as vulnerable as if there were no policy. CRITICISM OF THE ABA INVESTIGATION The ABA missed the point of the federal regulation that prompted the creation of the standards. The regulation is about having access to the record of student complaints.28 To fulfill its purpose, Wake Forest would have to contact students who were enrolled in the law school
Id. 34 C.F.R. 602.16(a)(1)(ix). 23 Wake Forest University School of Law 2012-2013 Student Handbook 43 of pdf (2012). 24 Id. 25 Id. 26 The core function of accreditation review is the notion that there are constituencies that rely on the accreditation process for accurate information about accredited programs and institutions, and that, from a consumer protection perspective, the results of accreditation review permit informed judgments to be made about the quality of the accredited institutions. Donald Polden, Dean of Santa Clara University School of Law, Statement of Principles of Accreditation and Fundamental Goals of a Sound Program of Legal Education 1 (May 6, 2009). Polden explained, This overarching purpose of accreditation is reflected in U.S. Department of Education policies for accreditation agencies standards. Section 602.16 states that agencies (such as the ABA) must demonstrate that it has standards that are sufficiently rigorous to ensure that the agency is a reliable authority regarding the quality of the education or training provided by the institutions or programs it accredits. The regulation goes on to specify how an agency meets this requirement, including the agencys publication and enforcement of accreditation standards that address the quality of the institution or program in the[r]ecord of student complaints received by, or available to, the agency. 27 Letter from Stephanie Giggetts, Assistant Consultant on Legal Education, to author (Dec. 3, 2012). 28 34 C.F.R. 602.16(a)(1)(ix).
22 21

during the 2011-2012 year and give them an opportunity to put any concerns they have about compliance on the record. It would then have to maintain that record until the next site visit has been completed. There have been many concerns about the failure of the ABA to adequately protect consumers. For example, United States Senators Charles Grassley and Barbara Boxer have harshly criticized the ABA for its ineffective oversight of law schools in open letters to the Consultant on Legal Education. The ABA could have been more effective in handling Wake Forest last Fall. It could have required publication of a corrective statement under Rule 16(c)(4).29 That sanction may be imposed without limitation.30 Conclusion This memo is a basic introduction; I would be happy to provide more information.

ABA Section on Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, 2012-2013 ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools 77-8 (2012). 30 Id.

29