Legal analysts applaud yet are skeptical of American Bar Association’s DEI elimination

By Tate Rosentreter
The Center Square

Some education experts see the American Bar Association’s recent vote to eliminate its diversity, equity, and inclusion accreditation requirement for law schools as significant, while others say it is only significant if the accreditor follows through on completely removing the ideology that “narrows discourse” and “corrodes discussion.”

Defending Education’s vice president and senior legal fellow Sarah Parshall Perry told The Center Square: “The ABA’s representation that it will vote to finally (after a year-long suspension) eliminate Standard 206…could be seen as a significant policy reversal, but only if the ABA makes good on its promise to kill the law school ‘diversity commitment’ standard for good.”

Standard 206 is the American Bar Association’s diversity and inclusion standard for law schools that was recently repealed by the ABA’s Accreditation Council and that, as Perry said, “in operation…worked very much like an unconstitutional hiring quota.”

Perry told The Center Square: “Considering the political and legal pressures the ABA has been under since the Supreme Court’s 2023 Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision, it’s a bit surprising that it took the ABA this long to see the error of its ways.”

American Enterprise Institute’s senior fellow and director of Education Policy Studies Rick Hess told The Center Square that the ABA’s vote to remove its DEI requirement is significant because it “provides cover for law school officials to back away and makes it harder for DEI proponents to frame such policies as a reflection of professional consensus.”

“In other words, it significantly shifts the Overton window,” Hess said.

Defending Education’s Sarah Parshall Perry noted to the Center Square that “all is not over in the quest to abolish race-consciousness in legal education.”

“The ABA, as the sole federally recognized accreditor of American law schools, still maintains Standard 303(c),” Perry explained.

“Adopted in February 2022, that standard requires accredited law schools to provide targeted education on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism at two key points in the legal education program, ensuring that future lawyers are trained to see race first and applicable legal arguments or individual merit second,” Perry said.

“That is a waste of precious classroom time, has nothing to do with an individual’s suitability for the practice of law, and sidelines dissenting views or classical liberal approaches to law,” Perry said.

“The nation’s law students should not be forced to endure an environment where ideological homogeneity is required,” Perry said. “That is antithetical to the notion of legal training on the whole – something which must be centered on adversarial reasoning, free inquiry, and neutral application of principles.”

The American Enterprise Institute’s Rick Hess likewise noted the harms DEI has on law schools, telling The Center Square: “It narrows discourse. It corrodes discussion of fundamental notions of liberty or equality. It encourages an emphasis on ideological grievances rather than due process and respect for the letter of the law.”

An ABA spokesman referred The Center Square to a press release on Standard 206’s elimination as well as a statement from ABA chair of the Accreditation Council Daniel Thies.

Thies said that the Council’s actions “represent part of a comprehensive effort to streamline and simplify the minimum requirements for law schools consistent with its Core Principles and Values.”

“The Council is also continuing to ensure that law schools are able to comply with the Standards and applicable law,” Thies said. “Approving the repeal of Standard 206 and revisions to Standards 205 and 207 reflect these commitments.”

“We recognize that law schools still have the ultimate authority over whether and how they incorporate a commitment to diversity and inclusion into their programs, consistent with applicable laws,” Thies said.

“We look forward to continuing to work with state supreme courts, our Advisory Committee, affiliate organizations, law schools, and others to examine our Standards and ensure they’re aligned with our core principles and values as a national accreditor,” Thies said.