Early reports from several leading U.S. law schools suggest that the proportion of nonwhite students enrolling this year remains largely unchanged following last year’s Supreme Court decision prohibiting race considerations in admissions.
As of early September, six top-ranked law schools—according to U.S. News & World Report—have released some racial diversity figures. Among these, five institutions observed that the percentage of first-year students of color either increased or held steady, while one saw a decrease. The schools with stable or rising minority enrollment include the University of Virginia, UCLA, Cornell, Vanderbilt, and USC Gould School of Law, with minority enrollment averaging 44% across these institutions.
Conversely, UC Berkeley School of Law reported a decline in the percentage of students of color, dropping from 57% to 50%. A spokesperson from Berkeley noted that the admissions process remained unchanged and that fluctuations are typical.
Despite the lack of detailed breakdowns by specific minority groups, the forthcoming American Bar Association report in mid-October will provide a clearer picture. Last year’s class, admitted before the affirmative action ban fully took effect, was the most diverse on record at 40% students of color.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case invalidated race-conscious admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, though schools can still access racial information post-enrollment. The current year’s application pool was notably larger and more diverse, with applicants of color making up nearly 48%, an increase from the previous year.
Many top law schools are delaying the release of detailed diversity figures, potentially due to fears of legal repercussions from conservative groups or criticism from diversity advocates. This cautious approach contrasts with past practices where schools would promptly highlight their diversity statistics.
The shift in reporting practices may be influenced by a broader climate of legal scrutiny and potential threats, as noted by experts. The delay in sharing diversity data reflects a strategic response to the evolving landscape of legal and public scrutiny surrounding diversity initiatives.
