« McIntyre & McIntyre on Capital Gains Tax Revenues | Main | »
February 18, 2006
Update on the ABA and Law School Diversity
Two new developments in the controversy over the proposed changes in the ABA's accreditation standards requiring law schools to "demonstrate by concrete action" a commitment to having a student body, faculty, and staff that are "diverse with respect to gender, race and ethnicity":
1. After a delay of several days, the ABA has finally made the new standards available on its web site.
2. Thom Lambert (Missouri-Columbia) charges the ABA with "utter hypocrisy regarding the rule of law" in voting at the same meeting to require President Bush to follow the law with respect to the terrorist surveillance program while ordering law schools to ignore state laws prohibiting racial preferences in law school admissions and hiring:
After chiding the President for not following the law, the Association turned its attention to the law schools. It told them that, to be accredited (i.e., to be viable at all), they must demonstrate their commitment to racial and gender diversity “by concrete action.” That means they must show actual results, not just sincere and extensive efforts. Moreover, they’re not allowed to let that pesky little law thing get in their way. The Association specifically stated that: "The requirement of a constitutional provision or statute that purports to prohibit consideration of gender, race, ethnicity or national origin in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school’s non-compliance with Standard 211."
So I’m confused. The organization dedicated to “build[ing] public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law in a democratic society” is telling the President he must follow the Constitution and statutes, but public law schools don’t have to (and, indeed, are not permitted to, if doing so would cause them to disappoint the Almighty ABA)? I guess the law applies only when we like what it’s telling us to do.
It is curious that the ABA immediately festooned its web site with materials on its actions regarding the terrorist surveillance program (press release, letter to President Bush, resolution, task force report) but waited for almost an entire week before grudgingly making available its actions regarding the new diversity standards.
For prior TaxProf Blog coverage, see here, here, here, here, and here.
Update: See The ABA’s “Brazen Defiance Of The Law III, by John Rosenberg
February 18, 2006 in Law School | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4eab53ef00d834ad1cc169e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Update on the ABA and Law School Diversity:
Comments
Very useful, thanks.
Posted by: Kirill | Feb 18, 2006 4:32:18 PM
We non-lawyers well understand that the legal profession has corrupted our liberty out of existence. The judiciary is the worst, although most of them trained in the offices of D.A.'s and A.G.'s; they can always find a precedent, whether they wish to overturn or sustain their prejudices.
We also know that a free people need little law, and that the proliferation of statutes is just a way to make criminals out of as many of us as possible, to give the governing classes more business and to allow them to believe they are living useful rather than destructive lives.
We also know that most of the law is unconstitutional, therefore illegal.
We are also aware that the Supreme Court was in no way conceived as to be the sole arbiter of constitutionality. That was a power grab that has never been challenged.
In today's legal environment, no one's rights are safe; they aren't even acknowledged. Thanks guys, you've turned a great nation into one not worth defending.
Posted by: Brett | Feb 18, 2006 5:02:34 PM
every time i think that the notion of "liberal bias" among law school profs is overblown, here comes something like this. why aren't law schools revolting against this? regardless of how dumb a law might be, how can the ABA's desire for ignorance of the law be tolerated?
Posted by: andy | Feb 19, 2006 4:49:51 AM
