Last week, the Wall Street Journal editorialized on the ABA’s DEI mandates on law schools.
The ABA suspended Standard 206 of its Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, which required schools to demonstrate a “commitment to diversity and inclusion.” But that was only half the problem. The ABA left untouched Standard 303(c), which requires law schools to “provide education to law students on bias, cross cultural competency and racism” twice before a student graduates.
Daniel Thies, chair of the Council of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, wrote a letter to the Editor. He suggested that there is another way for law schools to comply with Standard 303(c).
The law school accreditation standards are silent on DEI, and have been since February 2025. As you note, the council suspended Standard 206 on diversity and inclusion at that time. Looking forward, the council—which has the final say on the content of the accreditation standards—has proposed a permanent repeal effective as soon as this August.
Your editorial cites Standard 303(c) as a still-active DEI requirement. But that standard requires only two modest extracurricular sessions on cross-cultural competency and related topics. Schools are free to determine the content of those sessions, even (if they so choose) teaching on the harms of diversity requirements or on the importance of religious liberty.
I have long suspected that one way to comply with DEI standards is to criticize DEI. For example, some states require “Anti-Bias” CLE requirements. I have given CLE talks where I charge that the state Anti-Bias regimes, including ABA Model Rule 8.4(g), are unconstitutional. I dared state bar associations to deny CLE credit. The credits were approved.
Now, the ABA seems to be taking a new position: a religious law school, for example, can satisfy Standard 303(c) by highlighting how DEI harms religious liberty.
Will any law schools take up this mantle? I don’t know. Even if Standard 206 is repealed, law schools will still voluntarily comply with it in spirit. But this position at least gives the ABA some wiggle room in future fights with the Department of Education.
