ABA Reinstates Diversity Language in Law School Standards After Supreme Court Ruling
In a significant development for legal education, the Council of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar recently reinstated specific language on diversity and inclusion within its accreditation standards for law schools. At its quarterly meeting in Seattle, the council reversed an earlier decision to generalize diversity standards, a move that had sparked criticism from many stakeholders who saw it as a step back for diversity in the legal profession.
Why the Revisions Were Revisited
The council’s decision to modify Standard 206 stemmed largely from the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling, which ended race-based admissions policies. The implications of this ruling left law schools, many of which strive to promote diversity, uncertain about how to meet ABA accreditation standards without violating the new legal boundaries set by the Court. In response, the council initially proposed revisions to focus on creating access for all aspiring lawyers rather than emphasizing diversity as an explicit goal. This approach received widespread pushback.
Strong Backlash from Legal and Educational Communities
The August proposal drew numerous comments, with only two in favor and the majority voicing concern or opposition. Critics argued that removing explicit references to diversity could lead to a weaker commitment to fostering diverse law school environments and, in turn, a legal profession that is less representative of society. Prominent voices included the Law School Admissions Council, which argued that “weakening Standard 206 would send the wrong message about the value of diversity in legal education and the profession at large.”
Additionally, nearly a hundred law school faculty members and 44 deans voiced concerns that a more generalized standard might cause law schools to abandon commitments to diversity, potentially hindering the profession's role in fostering a pluralistic democracy. Organizations such as the ABA Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Center, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and attorneys general from 19 states joined in opposition.
Revisions to the Standard’s Language
Responding to the outcry, the ABA’s Standards Committee took steps to address the concerns. It issued a memo on November 1 acknowledging that some aspects of the revised Standard 206 may have exceeded the limitations set by the Supreme Court’s ruling. According to the memo, the ruling in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College restricts the use of race in admissions but does not prevent law schools from pursuing diversity goals through other means.
The newly revised Standard 206 now explicitly reinstates the terms “diversity and inclusion” and provides a list of identity characteristics to consider. Council member Carla D. Pratt clarified that these characteristics are not intended to mandate specific quotas in admissions, staffing, or faculty representation but rather to encourage schools to reflect on potential barriers for underrepresented groups. Additionally, law schools are not required to report data on these characteristics.
A Legal Framework for Diversity Compliance
The Broader Debate Around Standard 206
The contentious revisions to Standard 206 mark the latest chapter in an ongoing debate over diversity requirements in legal education. In June, conservative state attorneys general, led by Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, urged the council to amend Standard 206 to align more closely with the Supreme Court’s decision. Conversely, a coalition of 19 attorneys general from more liberal states, led by Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul, countered by urging the ABA and other influential organizations to maintain their dedication to diversity and inclusion in legal education.
Looking Forward: Next Steps and the Impact on Legal Education
With the council’s reinstated language now set for an additional 45-day public comment period, the ABA aims to find a balance that respects both the Supreme Court’s ruling and the critical need for diversity in the legal field. By reinforcing diversity within accreditation standards, the ABA acknowledges the importance of a legal profession that reflects and serves a diverse society.
The updated proposal may signal to law schools across the country that, despite legal challenges, fostering an inclusive environment remains a priority. As the proposal awaits further feedback, this development underscores a commitment to diversity in legal education, even within a rapidly changing legal landscape.
