Following the controversial SFFA v. Harvard decision negating the positive or negative use of race in law school admissions, law schools are now grappling with how to handle their post-affirmative action applications Reuters reports. How the universities manage both the students’ and their own needs without being seen to use prohibited practices is a challenge they currently face and may shape the nature of legal education for the foreseeable future.
Often framed by essay questions, law schools always strictly scrutinized candidates for admission. The Supreme Court’s June 29 ruling upheld that essays which describe candidates’ race, background, and the ways these factors have influenced their lives and aspirations are acceptable, a point later reiterated by the U.S. Department of Education.
However, the post-ruling landscape is fraught with uncertainty. Prospective law students are left wondering whether they should include their diversity statement, or apply at all. Thankfully, law schools have provided essay questions which allow applicants to distinguish themselves from the competition. The questions asked can vary widely, some examples being: “What does the rule of law mean to you, and what special background or experience do you have that may help you contribute to its advancement or that underscores its importance to you personally?”, “How has the world you came from positively shaped who you are today?” and, “Please address any information that you believe your application would be incomplete without and that sheds more light on your unique potential to succeed in the J.D. program and contribute to the University community and the field or profession.”
Differences in diversity and personal statement prompts are continually observed by Mike Spivey through his well-organized and updated blog. Some of these observations are compiled as an array of essay prompts from various law schools.
Despite some positive signs, optimism might be hasty. Racially neutral as the prompts might appear, there remains the potential for lawsuits from sectors resistant to change. Allegations of bias through proxies in admissions are being used to contest initiatives aimed at recruiting more women and law firm applicants. This new legal landscape might see a resurgence of litigation accusing law schools of backdoor admissions.
It’s a sensitive path to navigate, particularly when considering the pushback waiting on the sidelines. For example, legacy admissions at universities are already under threat Above the Law. As the application season unfolds, many will be waiting to see how law schools and their applicants adapt to this new reality.