Criminal Justice Faculty Credentials: A Response to Drs Hemmens and Hunter

Abstract

This article is a response to the criticisms of Drs. Hemmens and Hunter which appeared in recent issues of the Journal of Criminal Justice Education. Both agree that ACJS accreditation, which requires criminal justice departments who seek master’s program accreditation to have a faculty where 90% hold a PhD in criminal justice, will lead to greater status and strengthen the position of criminal justice programs within higher education. However, the 90% requirement does not necessarily improve the overall quality of the faculty in criminal justice programs and therefore should be eliminated. Moreover, the accreditation standards with respect to the faculty credential quotas fails to take into consideration the current faculty make‐up at some of America’s best criminal justice schools and is inferior to the rubric used by most regional accreditation organizations.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Drs Hemmens and Hunter for providing thoughtful commentary on this important issue. I admire the work and contributions of both but above all I am in awe of the genuine collegiality that they both embody. I would also like to thank the editor of Journal of Criminal Justice Education , Dr J. Mitchell Miller, and his staff for providing an opportunity for differing viewpoints on this matter. Lastly, I would like to thank Michael Colin Sturtz for his cheerful research assistance.

Notes

1. The University of Cincinnati website splits their faculty into two groups: undergraduate faculty and graduate faculty. Faculty members that do not hold a PhD are all listed as undergraduate faculty. It is unclear what impact, if any, bifurcation of faculty will have on accreditation.

2. Technically, the American Bar Association, Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is tasked with accreditation issues at America’s law schools.