In 1935, the Committee on Educational Standards was formed, the result of a joint effort by the National Chiropractic Association and the Council on State Examining Boards. Shortly after this committee was formed, it began to evaluate chiropractic schools, with the intent that all chiropractic education essentially become equal by meeting specific educational standards.
The committee's efforts to evaluate schools and their curricula were soon objected to by the "straight" chiropractic colleges, with threats of lawsuits against members of the committee. The straight schools formed a competing organization, the Associated Chiropractic Colleges of America, which later became the Allied Chiropractic Educational Institutions, and even later, the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (not related to the current organization of that name).
The Committee on Educational Standards later became the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE), and the fight continued - between those who wanted improved educational standards and those who did not. The straight schools fought the introduction of the 4,000-hour curriculum, just as they fought the introduction of the first professional degree and its requirement for two years of undergraduate education as a prerequisite to the chiropractic degree program.
Through the years, the majority prevailed and eventually, in 1974, the CCE became recognized by the U.S. Office of Education (now the U.S. Department of Education) as the accrediting agency for the chiropractic profession.
Some of the "straight" schools would not accept this circumstance, however, and once again formed their own accrediting agency. The Straight Chiropractic Academic Standards Association (SCASA) was recognized for a period of several years by the USDE until its recognition was revoked, in part, because it was not recognized by the majority of the profession. Eventually, all schools became accredited by the CCE, and everyone was happy.
Accreditation has certainly been a watershed event and mechanism for us. When I was new to the profession, there were two major hurdles for us to overcome: We were not accredited, and we had no research to support what we were doing clinically. With the successes of the CCE, one piece of this picture was fixed, and the other has come a long way, as well.
In 1986, I became president of National College of Chiropractic [now National University of Health Sciences]. One of my first obstacles was a major one. The CCE had placed National on probation a few months prior to my becoming president, and three weeks after I was named, I had to appear before its Commission on Accreditation (COA) for a hearing. (So, if you think Life is the only chiropractic program to have been placed on probation by CCE, you are seriously mistaken. I don't now how many other programs have been, but I know what I faced at that time!)
When an institution or program faces the imprimatur of "academic probation," there is a choice to be made - one can ignore it and accept the consequences, or address it and fix the problem. For me, not addressing the situation was not an option. We had to do whatever was necessary to fix our deficiencies. During the next several years, we were required to submit reports to the CCE every several months - there was never a question, and there was never any talk about suing the CCE.
Fast-forward to 2002: We find the CCE again doing its job - fulfilling its responsibility to the profession and the patients we serve. I do not know the details that led up to the decision to revoke accreditation from the doctor of chiropractic program (DCP) at Life University, but I am sure the reasons were just as valid as were those that placed National on probation in 1986. I am sure the DCP at Life was placed on probation some months prior to the decision to revoke accreditation, but for some reason, these warnings were ignored and the situation leading up to the warnings was not fixed.
This circumstance is not unique to the chiropractic profession, and one need only read the Chronicle of Higher Education ([url=http://chronicle.com/]http://chronicle.com/[/url]) to realize that any educational program or institution that does not meet accrediting standards is subject to the same outcome as that which affected Life.
Just this week, Morris Brown College of Atlanta lost its appeal for accreditation from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, despite testimony from the former mayor of Atlanta. James T. Rogers, executive director of the Association's Commission on Colleges, said he was saddened to see the 122-year-old institution lose its accreditation, but he placed the blame squarely on the college and its inability to maintain sound financial and management practices. "We had to take this action because of inaction on the part of the institution," he said. "It is the ultimate responsibility of the leadership of the institution to ensure that the institution continues to measure up to the expectations of the higher education community. If that doesn't happen, it is the responsibility of the higher education community to take appropriate action, and that is exactly what the commission did."
Now, what was the reaction of this disaccredited college president? Did he immediately threaten a lawsuit? Did he carry on about how unfair the actions of the commission were? Did he bring a lawsuit against the accrediting agency? Did he ask for some policies or standards to be waived? Did he insinuate that there were to be negotiations with the commission?
He did none of these things. He said, "With the help of a lot of people, we have made great progress. We will continue to improve; we will continue to raise funds; we will continue to meet the needs of our students and all standards for accreditation as we engage in the process of re-accreditation."
How has our profession reacted? It has done all of the things the president of Morris Brown College did not do. The institution has not met the requirements of the standards (in fact, the former president is known for his resistance to those standards) - often voting against increases in prerequisite education, for example. Once the decision was made to revoke accreditation, the institution sued the CCE and its Commission on Accreditation (COA), claiming that its actions were unfair and motivated by antitrust purposes, among other things. There has been no end to the stream of negativity that has come from this institution upon revocation of its accreditation.
This, however, is not all. Members of the profession who have no knowledge whatsoever about the facts - because they were neither members of the DCP at Life, nor have they any experience in the accreditation process - have suddenly become experts, and are making all kinds of proclamations about how unfair the CCE is and how it does not represent the profession.
As I write this article, it has just been reported that New Jersey, a state that has always been run by the "straights," has filed a complaint against the CCE (just what the CCE does not need to address right now, with all the lawsuits against it). There is talk of how much this will cost the CCE and that the organization cannot prevail.
This is professional genocide, and a certain element of our profession is inflicting this genocide on the chiropractic profession. One can always tell who these people are by listening to their dogma - their beliefs, which they pretend, are the truth. Genocide is defined as the "deliberate and systematic elimination of an ethnic or national group." Usually, this circumstance is not carried out by members of the group in question, but in our instance, some of us have devolved to the lowest common denominator, rather than rise to the needs of the occasion.
Those members of the profession who are making all the noise about this CCE decision were not to be found when National faced academic probation in 1986, but then, perhaps they would have preferred that National would have gone "down the tubes." Fortunately for the profession, and the students of National, my approach was much more like that of the current president of Morris Brown College. We asked, "what is wrong, and how do we fix it?" then set about the business of getting it done. If all those who are so opposed to the decision by the COA regarding Life's DCP accreditation would simply dedicate their time and money to correcting the deficiencies, perhaps the circumstance could be fixed in an appropriate amount of time - and in the process, we would avoid the perils of professional genocide.
I am amazed that some of us continue to be blinded to reality by hanging on to the dogma of the past - that which has no basis in factual evidence. The result is that they approach a negative circumstance as would spoiled children, when they should simply rise to the occasion and fix the problems that put them in that dilemma in the first place.
It is time to grow up; recognize the facts; and realize our profession must meet standards, just as other professions do. We can figure this out, or we continue this process of professional genocide. Which will it be?
James Winterstein, DC
President, National University of Health Sciences
Lombard, Illinois
