As we advance the commitments in my 100-Day Plan, another question continues to emerge from presidents, chancellors, system leaders, and accreditation liaisons: What exactly is SACSCOC’s role in institutional governance and where are the boundaries?

Some institutions operate within complex state systems. Others have shifting board compositions, rapid leadership transitions, or external pressures that raise understandable questions about oversight. And at the center of these questions is something deeper than structure or policy, it’s trust.

Governance sits at the core of institutional integrity, and institutional integrity sits at the core of accreditation. So, let’s dig into governance, shall we?

What the Law Actually Says

The Principles of Accreditation require institutions to demonstrate that their governance structures, regardless of size, sector, or system, support sound decision-making and the protection of academic integrity.  There is even a standard that requires boards to evaluate the effectiveness of their efforts.

What the Law does not do is prescribe a specific governing board model, number of trustees, or organizational chart. Additionally, at SACSCOC we respect states’ ability to set law and policy regarding governance. State law and policy have primacy as we work with our institutions. SACSCOC steps in only when governance actions threaten the institution’s ability to meet the Principles of Accreditation. Additionally, institutions submit self-assessments of their governance actions and have to answer questions when complaints are received and/or bad behavior is put on display in public.

Where the Lore Comes From

The lore arises from a genuine and understandable fear: What if we get caught in the middle? To be fair, the ongoing discussion since my arrival is when does governance begin?

Law vs. Lore

✅ Law: Institution boards ensure the institution’s ability to fulfill its mission.
❌ Lore: SACSCOC dictates governance models.

The Pruitt Perspective

Trust matters in accreditation, especially in governance. Oversight should promote clarity, not caution. It is important to note, again, that we support states’ rights to set their own law and policy. We will respect those rights and will not place an institution into sanction for upholding state law or policy.