Report reveals ABA pressure on law schools to champion diversity policies

Hold onto your gavels, folks — the American Bar Association (ABA) is under fire for allegedly turning law school accreditation into a diversity pressure cooker.

The Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) has dropped a bombshell report, claiming the ABA’s standards have strong-armed top public law schools into adopting race and sex-based preferences that could violate federal civil rights laws, sparking backlash from state courts and the Trump administration, as Just the News reports.

This saga starts with the PLF digging into accreditation visit reports from 45 of the top 50 public law schools, as ranked by U.S. News and World Report, covering nearly a decade of evaluations. Using the Freedom of Information Act, they uncovered what they call a pattern of DEI-driven mandates. It’s not just a hunch — it’s a paper trail.

ABA standards under scrutiny for bias

The PLF report doesn’t mince words, stating, “The ABA clearly uses its standards to pressure law schools” toward questionable diversity goals. If true, that’s a bold overreach for an organization meant to uphold fairness, not engineer social outcomes. Turns out, even accreditors might need a lesson in playing by the rules.

Among the 45 schools reviewed, 20 got failing marks from the ABA Council for not meeting DEI expectations, while 25 were patted on the back for compliance. Common critiques included too few minority or women faculty and insufficient student diversity, while praise went to schools with diversity scholarships and active DEI committees. It’s almost as if the ABA had a checklist that ignored merit in favor of quotas.

Specific issues flagged in reports ranged from minority student attrition to a lack of LGBTQ+ support groups, with the most frequent issue being a shortage of minority faculty in 15 schools. On the flip side, schools were lauded for DEI leadership roles and faculty diversity training. One wonders if legal expertise took a backseat to ideological box-checking.

State courts push back on monopoly

The fallout has been swift, with state supreme courts in Florida and Texas questioning the ABA’s monopoly on law school accreditation. Florida set up a workgroup to review the ABA Council’s diversity standards and political activism, while Texas opened public comment on whether to cut ties entirely. These aren’t just idle musings—states are smelling something fishy.

In Texas, eight law deans argued that ditching the ABA would tank graduates’ out-of-state job prospects and harm school reputations. National law school groups echoed the sentiment, as noted by the ABA Journal. But are these concerns about students, or about preserving a cozy status quo?

University of South Texas law professor Josh Blackman offered a sharp counter in a minority report to the Texas Supreme Court, saying the ABA wants to keep benefiting students “who have no interest” in serving local communities. Ouch — that’s a polite but pointed reminder that law schools should prioritize their own state’s needs over national agendas.

Legislative, federal responses emerge

On the federal front, an order from President Donald Trump called for the ABA’s problematic policies to be “permanently eradicated” if it wants to keep its accreditation monopoly. The same warning was implied for the American Medical Association’s grip on medical schools. It’s a shot across the bow — shape up, or ship out.

The PLF isn’t just pointing fingers; they’ve proposed a legislative model to ban accreditors from enforcing diversity requirements based on race, sex, or national origin, while still allowing lawful diversity efforts. They argue the Department of Education could stop unlawful discrimination, but lacks the power to regulate standards without new laws. It’s a practical fix for what they see as a systemic flaw.

Meanwhile, other accreditors are feeling the heat — the WASC Senior College and University Commission paused DEI provisions for review, while the Higher Learning Commission dropped them entirely, and six southern state university systems formed a new accreditor focused purely on academic excellence. It seems the tide is turning against forced ideological conformity. Who’d have thought academic freedom might make a comeback?

ABA’s silence, suspended standards

The ABA, for its part, has stayed mum on the allegations, often hiding behind legal distinctions between itself and its Council of Legal Education. They didn’t respond to inquiries, which hardly screams confidence. Silence isn’t golden when your credibility is on trial.

Adding fuel to the fire, the ABA Council suspended its Standard 206 on diversity and inclusion, roughly 20 months after a Supreme Court ruling banned racial preferences in admissions, with a revised standard expected soon. Yet, PLF notes that Standard 206 dismissed state bans on race preferences as mere “purports,” suggesting defiance of local laws. That’s not just tone-deaf — it’s a legal tightrope.

Standard 205, still active, has also been wielded to flag discrimination when favored groups are underrepresented, as seen in a review of George Mason University’s law school. The PLF concludes the ABA has abused its sole federally recognized status to push race and sex preferences, impacting dozens of schools with praise or penalties. If accreditation is a privilege, perhaps it’s time to rethink who holds the keys.