Deception as Doctrine: The CCE’s Longstanding Pattern of Skirting Federal Recognition Criteria
Originally published: 2025-07-16
A Legacy of Obfuscation
The Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) has a sordid history of deception, manipulation, and strategic suppression of dissent. One of the clearest examples came in its 2011-2012 dealings with the U.S. Department of Education (USDE) over its recognition as the sole accreditor for chiropractic education. When the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (NACIQI) recommended that the CCE demonstrate compliance with 34 CFR §602.13, a federal law requiring “wide acceptance” of an accrediting agency’s standards, the CCE panicked.
Instead of transparently addressing NACIQI's concerns, CCE Chair at the time, Dr. David Wickes, sent a letter to Assistant Secretary Eduardo Ochoa just eight days later, pleading for the recommendation to be removed. To the astonishment of many, Ochoa obliged.
Craig Little DC who is the current CCE President and CEO was the Vice Chair at the time.
CLICK HERE for a copy of that letter
“We respectfully ask that this language be removed,” Wickes wrote. “It will be exploited by the same vocal opposition group to further create a division in the profession.” Ochoa agreed, brushing aside the testimony of thousands of chiropractors and dozens of organizations, characterizing them as a “small minority.”
“We respectfully ask that this language be removed,” Wickes wrote. “It will be exploited by the same vocal opposition group to further create a division in the profession.”
Policy 56 and NBCE Part IV: The Cartel Strategy Evolves
Fast forward to 2025, and the same pattern of deceit continues under the guise of “standards” and “public protection.” At the center of this evolution is Policy 56, a CCE policy that ties accreditation to the taking and passing of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners’ (NBCE) Part IV exam which is now centralized to NBCE and FCLB Headquarters in Greeley Colorado due to a substantive change in NBCE and by default, CCE policy.
Although no state has completed any due diligence in regards to the centralization of Part IV or adopted such a requirement, CCE’s enforcement of Policy 56 forces schools to compel students to take Part IV creating a regulatory stranglehold over chiropractic education and licensure.
“Policy 56 weaponizes accreditation to enforce a private testing monopoly.”
The centralization of the Part IV exam at NBCE’s Greeley, Colorado headquarters, what many now call the “Greeley Grift,” is a blatant cash grab and logistical nightmare for students. It is the natural extension of a monopolistic infrastructure long protected by collusion between the CCE, NBCE, FCLB, and aligned trade organizations like the Association of Chiropractic Colleges. This is the same infrastructure that Wickes used in 2011 to convince the USDE that dissent was irrelevant.
The July 11, 2025 Meeting: History Repeats Itself
At the most recent July 11, 2025 CCE Council meeting, dissent was once again muzzled. The public was prohibited from recording the meeting, and virtual attendance was denied. According to CCE President Craig Little, the prohibition on recording is a “standing rule” with no basis in CCE’s public documents. This is further evidence of the Council’s ongoing commitment to secrecy rather than transparency.
CLICK HERE for more on that story
The refusal to allow recordings or virtual access is particularly troubling given the national uproar over Policy 56 and the NBCE’s recent changes. Students, faculty, and practitioners across the spectrum have called for reform, yet the CCE continues to operate behind closed doors, using outdated rules and unverifiable customs as a shield against accountability.
Wickes’ True Colors: “The Gangrenous Arm” of the Profession
Perhaps the most chilling revelation about the CCE’s culture of intolerance comes from Wickes’ own mouth. As President of Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College (CMCC), Wickes was reported in 2018 to have described chiropractors who practice within a vertebral subluxation and wellness model as “the gangrenous arm of the profession that must be cut off.” This chilling metaphor reveals the deeper animus behind efforts to marginalize subluxation-based practitioners and consolidate power within a narrow, sanitized, medically compliant vision of chiropractic.
This is not simply an academic dispute. Wickes’ ideology, now institutionalized through CCE policy and NBCE enforcement, has real consequences: inflated tuition, mandatory exams unrelated to clinical competency, and a culture of fear that stifles curricular freedom and professional diversity.
“The gangrenous arm of the profession that must be cut off.” – David Wickes, CMCC President
The Real Problem with 602.13: Wide Acceptance by Whom?
The heart of this issue lies in the interpretation of federal regulation 602.13, which requires accrediting agencies to show that their standards are “widely accepted” by the institutions and practitioners they accredit. But the CCE’s strategy then and now has been to define “acceptance” only through the lens of cartel partners like the NBCE, ACA, ACC, and FCLB.
In 2011, the CCE downplayed the over 4000 letters and testimonies from chiropractors, organizations, and students as irrelevant. In 2025, it continues the same strategy by refusing to acknowledge opposition to Policy 56 and suppressing transparency in its own proceedings.
Conclusion
The CCE’s legacy is one of suppression, manipulation, and monopolistic control, shielded by friendly bureaucrats and backed by a handful of powerful organizations with financial and ideological motives. Its long-running abuse of federal recognition criteria, particularly 602.13, reveals an agency more concerned with preserving power than serving the chiropractic profession.
Whether it was Wickes gaslighting the Department of Education in 2011 or the Council stonewalling critics in 2025, the CCE has shown that it is willing to rewrite history, ignore stakeholders, and impose conformity in pursuit of its vision. The question is no longer whether the CCE should be held accountable, but whether the profession will finally rise to demand it.
