In a significant shift, the American Bar Association (ABA) has announced its intention to retain references to “race and ethnicity” within its diversity guidelines for law schools. This decision comes in response to backlash from legal educators, who argued that an earlier proposal to remove these terms could undermine efforts to attract a diverse student body and faculty.
The ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admission to the Bar is set to review a revised version of the Diversity and Inclusion standard, following widespread criticism of its initial draft. The first proposal was perceived as an overreach beyond the boundaries established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that prohibits the consideration of race in college admissions. A memo released on November 1 highlighted that the initial changes were viewed as detrimental to diversity initiatives, potentially sending a negative message about the importance of inclusivity.
This controversy centers on how law schools demonstrate their commitment to diversity in recruitment, admissions, and programming. As the national accreditor of law schools recognized by the U.S. Department of Education, the ABA enforces a set of standards that institutions must adhere to. The review of the current diversity and inclusion standard began last year to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling.
The previous standard required law schools to create “full opportunities” for “racial and ethnic minorities,” emphasizing the necessity for a diverse student body. The first revision suggested a more ambiguous approach, stating that schools must provide access to “all persons,” omitting specific references to race and ethnicity.
In September, a coalition of 44 law deans expressed their concerns in a letter, asserting that the initial proposal significantly rolled back necessary diversity requirements. The newly proposed revision aims to mandate that law schools demonstrate their commitment through “concrete action,” explicitly including groups historically excluded from the legal profession based on various identities, including race, gender, and socioeconomic status.
If approved, this revised version will undergo a second round of public comment, reflecting the ongoing complexities faced by educational institutions and accrediting bodies in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling.
