Back to Results

Belmont University

As of October 2, 2026
Former Name: Ward Belmont College (1925 - 1950); Belmont College (1951 - 1990)

The information on this page describes the accreditation relationship between this institution and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges. General information about the Commission and the accreditation process is provided at the end of this document.

General Information

CEO Name
Dr. Robert Fisher
Address
1900 Belmont Boulevard Nashville, TN 37212-3757
Country
United States
Institutional Phone
(615) 460-6000
Approved to Offer
Associate's Degree Baccalaureate Degree Master's Degree Doctoral Degrees

Visit Website View Available Programs

Accreditation Information

Status
Former Accredited
Public Sanctions
None
Accreditation Granted
January 1, 1925
Reaffirmation
2011
Distance Education Approval Date
December 1, 2000
Degree Level
VI i See Approved to Offer above for the complete list.
Control
Private, Not-For-Profit
Full Accreditation History

Accreditation History

Accredited: 01/01/1925 – 06/12/2020
06/12/2020 – Belmont University, Nashville, TN (accredited by SACSCOC in 1925), merged with Watkins College of Art, Nashville, TN (accredited by SACSCOC in 2010). The newly-merged institution retained the name of Belmont University, Nashville, TN.

Most Recent History with SACSCOC

  • 2019 Monitoring Report

About SACSCOC and Accreditation

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC), the accreditation name of The Commission on Colleges and Universities, is the commission responsible for accrediting degree-granting institutions across the nation and internationally. The SACSCOC Board of Trustees is the representative body of the member institutions also known as the College Delegate Assembly. To gain or maintain accreditation, an institution must comply with SACSCOC policies, procedures, and with all standards contained in the Principles of Accreditation: Foundations for Quality Enhancement in the professional judgment of peer reviewers. SACSCOC’s institutional accreditation includes all degree levels regardless of location or mode of instruction. The Commission accredits the institution as a whole.

Components of the Review Process

The SACSCOC Board of Trustees conducts several types of institutional reviews: (1) Candidate Committee reviews of applicant institutions seeking candidacy, (2) Accreditation Committee reviews of candidate institutions seeking initial membership, (3) Reaffirmation Committee reviews of member institutions seeking continued accreditation following a comprehensive review, (4) Special Committee reviews of member institutions seeking continued accreditation following evaluation of institutional circumstances that are accreditation related, and (5) Substantive Change Committee reviews of member institutions seeking approval and continued accreditation following the review of a change of a significant modification or expansion to the institution’s nature and scope. Each of the above type of reviews has its own evaluation documents and peer review procedures and can be found on the SACSCOC website at www.sacscoc.org.

The Committees on Compliance and Reports (C&R), standing committees of the SACSCOC Board of Trustees, review reports prepared by evaluation committees and the institutional responses to those reports. A C&R Committee’s recommendation regarding an institution’s accreditation-related matters is forwarded to the Executive Council for review. The Executive Council recommends action to the SACSCOC Board of Trustees, which makes the final decision on reaffirmation and any monitoring activities that it may require of an institution. The SACSCOC Board of Trustees convenes twice a year.

Complaints Against SACSCOC Accredited Institutions

The Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC) recognizes the value of information provided by students, employees, and others in determining whether an institution’s performance is consistent with SACSCOC standards for obtaining or maintaining accreditation. The Commission’s interest also is in ensuring that member institutions maintain appropriate grievance procedures and standards of procedural fairness and that the procedures are applied appropriately and consistently. The procedures for the review of complaints involving member institutions enable SACSCOC to address possible violations of its Principles of Accreditation, its Core Requirements and Standards, SACSCOC policies or procedures, as well as to address possible violations of an institution’s own policies and procedures, if related to the Principles.

Since SACSCOC’s complaint procedures are for the purpose of addressing any significant non-compliance with SACSCOC Principles of Accreditation, policies, or procedures, the procedures are not intended to be used to involve SACSCOC in disputes between individuals and member institutions, or cause SACSCOC to interpose itself as a reviewing authority in individual matters of admission, grades, granting or transferability of credits, application of academic policies, fees or other financial matters, disciplinary matters or other contractual rights and obligations. Nor does SACSCOC seek redress on an individual’s behalf. Under no circumstances does SACSCOC respond to, or take action on, any complaint or any allegation that contains defamatory statements. Further, SACSCOC will not serve as a grievance panel when the outcome of institutional grievance or appeal processes is unsatisfactory to the complainant.

SACSCOC expects individuals to attempt to resolve the issue through all means available to the complainant, including following the institution’s own published grievance procedures, before submitting a complaint to SACSCOC. Therefore, SACSCOC is under no obligation to consider additional information submitted by the complainant subsequent to the receipt of the formal complaint. SACSCOC’s usual practice is not to consider a complaint that is currently in administrative proceedings, including institutional proceedings, or in litigation. However, if there is substantial, credible evidence that indicates systemic problems with an accredited institution, SACSCOC may, at its discretion, choose to proceed with the review.

For the fastest and most secure review by SACSCOC personnel, we strongly encourage you to submit your formal complaint online. You can easily file your concerns by completing the digital “Complaints Against Institutions: Information Sheet and Form” directly through our secure online portal. Please note that to maintain the integrity of the review process, SACSCOC cannot evaluate oral or anonymous complaints, nor can we accept complaints submitted on behalf of another individual or forwarded from another entity. Filing your complaint electronically ensures it is received immediately and streamlines the review process.

Scroll to Top
Main Menu