People object to a doctrine of acceptance as implying non-action, but this objection is a form of the is-ought error. Accepting that the boat currently has a leak does not imply a commitment to sinking.
I'm not familiar with a "doctrine of acceptance", and a quick search talks only about contract law. Do you have a description of what exactly you're objecting to? It would be instructive (but probably not doable here, as it's likely political topics that provide good examples) to dissect the cases that the doctrine comprises. My suspicion is that the formulation as a doctrine is cover for certain positions, rather than being a useful generalization.
To the boat analogy, "acceptance" can mean either "acknowledgement... (read more)
It seems you could apply this in reverse for non-acceptance as well. Thinking that its not ok for the boat to leak does not imply a belief that the boat is not leaking. (often this is the argument of people who think a doctrine of non-acceptance is implying not seeing clearly).
10Viliam
It would still be interesting to find the answer to an empirical question whether people accepting that the boat has a leak are more likely or less likely to do something about it.