In a fervent clash between tradition and reform, a staggering number of U.S. law school deans—comprising over a third of the total—have voiced their staunch opposition to a proposed initiative by the American Bar Association (ABA) aimed at enforcing greater uniformity across legal courses. These dissenting voices argue vehemently that the ABA’s proposition amounts to an unwarranted encroachment upon the autonomy of law schools, thus imperiling the freedom of legal educators within the classroom.
Expressing their concerns in a collective stance, 76 law deans penned a compelling public comment, admonishing the proposed alterations to the ABA’s student learning outcomes standards, cautioning that such measures could potentially inflict harm upon the landscape of legal education. Among the signatories were distinguished figures from prominent institutions such as New York University, Georgetown, and the University of Michigan.
On the opposing front, advocates of the proposed reform contend that fostering conformity among mandatory courses, coupled with the delineation of specific learning objectives for each class, would yield tangible benefits for students. Proponents assert that this structured approach would facilitate enhanced oversight, ensuring a coherent integration of individual courses within the broader curriculum. Notable supporters, including former ABA legal education luminary Barry Currier and a cadre of esteemed law professors serving on an ABA committee, underscored the necessity of such measures in bolstering educational efficacy.
Despite the spirited discourse, William Adams, the ABA’s managing director for legal education, opted to remain mum on the proposed overhaul and its ensuing feedback, declining to offer commentary.
The genesis of this contention can be traced back a decade, when the ABA first promulgated regulations pertaining to student learning outcomes, mandating that institutions delineate the proficiencies and knowledge base that law graduates should possess, and subsequently assess their attainment. However, in a bid to refine these standards, the ABA unveiled a proposed revision last August, citing the need for greater specificity and clarity. Despite minor revisions following initial criticism, the proposal elicited further dissent during the subsequent public comment period in March.
As the dust settles on this contentious debate, it becomes evident that the proposed reforms have failed to sway a significant cohort of legal academia. Critics contend that the initiative imperils academic freedom, impinging upon professors’ prerogative to craft their own courses, while simultaneously burdening institutions with onerous administrative obligations. Central to the proposal is the mandate for schools to articulate and disseminate precise learning objectives for each course, ensuring alignment with the requisite professional skills and knowledge demanded of aspiring legal practitioners. Furthermore, the proposal advocates for the implementation of early assessments in first-year classes, with a view to providing students with constructive feedback prior to final examinations.
In a resolute rebuttal, the 76 dissenting law deans admonished what they perceive as a concerted effort by the ABA to exert greater regulatory control over law schools, urging restraint in the adoption of further regulations.
With the ABA’s legal education council slated to convene on May 17, the fate of these proposed reforms hangs in the balance, poised at the intersection of tradition and transformation in legal education.
