American Bar Association Proposes Comprehensive Free Speech Policies for Law Schools

In a recent and noteworthy development, the American Bar Association (ABA) has unveiled a proposal requiring law schools to adopt robust and well-defined free speech policies. This groundbreaking proposal has garnered significant attention within the legal academic community, potentially signaling a fundamental shift in how law schools safeguard the crucial principle of free speech.
 

Positive Reception and Opportunities for Improvement
 
Following an extensive month-long public comment period, the ABA received 19 comments on a proposed amendment to its law school accreditation standards. This proposed change would make it mandatory for law schools to establish written free speech policies that promote the open exchange of ideas and explicitly prohibit disruptive activities on their campuses.
 
Nearly all commenters expressed their unequivocal support for incorporating a free speech rule within the accreditation standards. However, many contributors have suggested that the ABA should consider reinforcing the proposal to provide even more comprehensive safeguards or specific refinements.
 
Student Coalition Advocates for Student Rights
 
One influential voice in this discourse comes from a coalition of student leaders at the City University of New York School of Law. They have urged the ABA to ensure that students can engage in peaceful protests without causing disruptions. Additionally, they have called for the new standard to include provisions that protect students from harmful or discriminatory speech and harassment.
 
Advocates of the Gold Standard
 
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, an organization renowned for assisting law school faculty members facing administrative repercussions due to their actions, has proposed that the ABA encourage all law schools to adopt the Chicago Statement. Introduced by the University of Chicago in 2015, this statement is often acclaimed as the gold standard for institutional policies concerning freedom of expression. It emphasizes the importance of allowing criticism of speech while discouraging any efforts to obstruct such speech.
 
Diverse Perspectives from Puerto Rico
 
Notably, University of Puerto Rico Law School administrators have raised concerns about the ABA's involvement in regulating free speech policies. They have argued that issues related to free speech are inherently contextual and have suggested that the proposed standard might inadvertently limit law schools' ability to address the complex nuances of speech and civility.
 
Essential Components of the ABA Proposal
 
According to the ABA's proposal, law schools would be responsible for crafting their own free speech policies. These policies must prioritize protecting the rights of faculty, staff, and students to express controversial or unpopular ideas. Simultaneously, they should serve as safeguards for fostering robust debate, facilitating peaceful demonstrations, and permitting protests while explicitly prohibiting disruptive activities that hinder free expression or substantially disrupt the functioning of the law school.
 
Contextual Background and Future Prospects
 
This proposal comes after several high-profile free speech incidents at institutions like Stanford Law School and Yale Law School, where students disrupted controversial speakers, raising questions about the school's handling of such situations.
 
However, the American Association of University Professors has asserted that law schools' primary threat to free speech arises from lawmakers seeking to limit faculty from addressing issues such as racial injustice and banning critical race theory from classroom discussions. Consequently, the organization has called upon the ABA to reconsider the stipulation that the proposed free speech policies do not violate the law.
 
The ABA's Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is slated to deliberate on the free speech proposal during its forthcoming meeting on November 17 in Dallas. This crucial meeting could potentially reshape how law schools approach and protect the fundamental right to free speech on their campuses.