New Accreditation Standard Addresses Academic Freedom and Expression: ABA's Response to Campus Speech Controversies

The ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar's Strategic Review Committee has introduced a novel accreditation standard that directly tackles academic freedom policies and freedom of expression concerns. This move directly responds to controversies surrounding campus speech and calls for investigations. The impetus for this proposal stems partly from a request by a U.S. House of Representatives committee to investigate an incident at Stanford Law School. This initiative symbolizes the growing need for unambiguous academic freedom and expression directives within educational institutions.
 

A memorandum dated August 2 outlines that the suggested standard advocates expanding the current Standard 405(b), which obliges law schools to create and communicate academic freedom policies. The memo explicitly recommends extending these policies to encompass full-time and part-time faculty members. Additionally, it promotes the integration of mechanisms that afford due process to individuals who allege breaches of their academic freedom. The proposal unequivocally condemns disruptive conduct that obstructs the open expression of ideas.
 
While the memo refrains from delving into the intricate details of the Stanford Law School speech incident, it references a comparable occurrence involving Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2023. During an event hosted by the campus Federalist Society, Judge Duncan encountered disruptions from the audience due to his contentious views on transgender individuals. Notably, the memo does not attribute the genesis of the proposed standard to the House Committee's request but rather underscores it as an indispensable stride toward addressing mounting concerns.
 
Legal professionals have proffered their perspectives on these forthcoming changes. Attorneys interviewed by the ABA Journal have remarked that the Stanford incident predominantly pertains to free speech instead of academic freedom. They assert that more comprehensive directives are requisite for both these notions and express support for establishing a comprehensive accreditation standard. The proposed standard's focal point on denouncing behavior that disrupts the smooth operation of law schools is hailed as a constructive measure to sustain an environment conducive to learning.
 
Erwin Chemerinsky, Dean of the University of California at Berkeley School of Law, underscores the protected nature of protests and expressions both within and outside of buildings as long as they do not undermine the speaker's message or the audience's capacity to perceive. He accentuates the need for institutions to articulate their zero-tolerance stance toward disruptions overtly and enforce disciplinary measures against students engaging in such conduct.
 
Brian Gallini, Dean of the Willamette University College of Law, posits that synergizing the discourse on academic freedom with learning evaluations and objectives within accreditation standards could be advantageous. He acknowledges the intricacy of achieving an equilibrium between robust deliberation in educational environments, safeguarding academic freedom, and preserving the efficacy of classroom interactions.