The American Bar Association’s (ABA) decision to repeal its law school diversity and inclusion standard, Standard 206, has sparked considerable debate. During a special session, the ABA’s accrediting council voted to eliminate the standard, which required law schools to “demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion.” This move, which passed with a 10-6 vote, was seen as necessary to ensure the ABA’s recognition by the U.S. Department of Education.
The decision to withdraw Standard 206 has been linked to the need for the ABA to maintain its role as a national accreditor. Melissa Hart, chair of the council, emphasized that accreditation by the Department of Education and state supreme courts ensures the best interests of law students and the legal profession are served. Although the ABA’s House of Delegates previously rejected the repeal, it also voted to streamline the standards-changing process, allowing the council to proceed without further delegate approval. More information on the ongoing debate surrounding the process can be found here.
Some prominent figures within the legal education community opposed the move, expressing concerns about its implications for diversity in the legal profession. Beto Juarez and Diedre Keller, both notable figures in legal academia, recorded their dissenting votes. However, for others like David Brennen, the vote was a pragmatic decision to avoid characterization of diversity standards as political mandates by some state supreme courts.
Advocates for maintaining diversity and inclusion standards caution against the potential risks of lacking a national accreditor, which they argue could complicate bar exam eligibility across states. Steve Bahls, president emeritus of Augustana College, highlighted the importance of these standards for the portability of legal credentials.
The repeal also follows past warnings about the jeopardy facing accreditors who uphold diversity requirements. The Trump administration had hinted that maintaining such standards might threaten an accreditor’s status. This context perhaps lends understanding to the ABA’s calculations in prioritizing their role as a national accreditor over maintaining specific diversity mandates.
As the ABA prepares to face the Department of Education’s National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, the decision to repeal Standard 206 and others relating to discrimination and coursework on bias remains a polarizing issue within the legal education landscape.