Law Profs to Mandate Only "Woke" Diversity

WASHINGTON - Feb. 27, 2024 - PRLog -- No longer content to try to force all law schools to admit just more Black and Hispanic applicants, law professors at top law schools (which have a much wider choice of applicants) now want to compel admission decisions to be based upon many different "woke" factors including "gender expression" (which isn't the same as "gender identity") at all accredited law schools.

Under a new proposal being considered by the American Bar Association [ABA] which accredits them, all law schools would be compelled to adopt new admission practices even if that meant defying the Supreme Court's recent decision banning consideration of race.  They would also have to "adopt, publish, and adhere" to a "belonging policy."

Unfortunately, all of this ignores what may be the most important form of discrimination by law schools; reluctance if not outright refusal to hire law professors who are not liberals.

As a result, conservative and libertarian views may no longer be expressed (much less taught), even to the point that many law students are afraid to speak out in class or even in private conversations with other law students.

At my own law school - which has been rated even more liberal than the great majority of other very liberal law schools - a law professor publicly complained that students who are not as liberal as their teachers are afraid that, if they speak out, they will be punished, presumably with lower grades, says public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

The Council of the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar has just voted to expand its diversity mandate from only 3 characteristics which must be considered ("gender, race, and ethnicity") to include no fewer than 14 ("race, color, ethnicity, religion, national origin, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, age, disability, military status, Native American tribal citizenship, or socioeconomic background.")

Moreover, law schools would have to comply "despite legal constraints"; referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that affirmative action in higher education was unconstitutional.

Making such a rebuff of the Supreme Court's anti-discrimination ruling even clearer, the new requirement would provide: "Any law that purports to prohibit consideration of any of the identity characteristics listed in Standard 206(a) and (b) in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school's non-compliance with Standard 206."

The New York Times has just highlighted the problems of having law school faculties so liberal that their ability to teach even fundamental courses and concepts such as constitutional law fairly, if at all, is severely compromised.

http://banzhaf.net/  jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf