Comments mixed on proposals to pull back law school diversity standards
As the council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar considers a further retreat from diversity, equity and inclusion accreditation standards, public comments on the matter brought mixed responses.
In May, the council voted to repeal Standard 206, a major DEI-focused accreditation rule, after receiving pressure early in President Donald Trump’s second administration. The vote came despite an overwhelming majority of comments from the legal education community strongly in favor of keeping the embattled requirements.
At that same meeting, the council voted to send out for comments regarding the repeal of one and adjustments to two additional requirements focused on DEI: Standard 303(c), which requires law schools to provide education related to cultural competence, racism and bias and is proposed to be repealed; and revisions of Standards 205 and 207, which set up nondiscrimination rules for students and faculty.
The comment period, which closed Monday, drew 15 letters opposing the end of the bias training rule that was instituted in 2022, and nine supporting it.
“It was never clear what the standard was designed to achieve in student outcomes,” wrote Derek T. Muller, professor at the University of Notre Dame Law School. “After four years, with no real ability to measure or meaningfully evaluated, the standard ought to be repealed.”
The Clinical Legal Education Association disagrees. “This is a time not to retreat but rather to loudly reaffirm what our profession stands for and its commitment to preparing lawyers who will meet the legal needs of a diverse society,” it states in its letter.
Meanwhile, the proposed adjustments to nondiscrimination rules that would trim down admissions policies but not specify who is protected brought two comments in favor of its elimination and 10 opposing it.
“The council’s proposed changes would cripple efforts to enhance diversity,” wrote Anuradha Gwal, chair of the ABA Business Law Section’s Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Board. “The council has not offered adequate rationale for its proposal.”
Those in favor of the changes cited that the moves simplify and confine the standards to assure a law school abides by applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations.
“Council members read and carefully consider every comment,” council chair Daniel Thies said in a statement.
The issue is coming to a head as the U.S. Department of Education currently reviews the accreditor status of the council itself, which is now carefully watching the department’s responses to other accreditors under review. The council is an independent arm of the ABA and recognized by the department as the sole accrediting body for U.S. law schools, but that is changing. Since the beginning of this year, the state supreme courts of Alabama, Texas and Florida made moves to break ties with the council. Other state supreme courts, including Tennessee and Ohio, currently are reevaluating ABA accreditation.
Most jurisdictions require applicants to the bar to be graduates of an ABA-accredited law school.
The next council meeting is scheduled for Aug. 20-22. No agenda has been set.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
