The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Video: ABA Midyear Meeting Panel on Viewpoint Diversity
Are the ABA and the legal profession doing enough to promote viewpoint diversity?
In February, I participated in an important panel at the American Bar Association Midyear meeting on viewpoint diversity. I will write much more about the event in due course. The video is below, and you can download the transcript here.
Here is the panel description:
Are the ABA and the legal profession doing enough to promote viewpoint diversity? A panel including longtime ABA members with diverse approaches will discuss the issue of viewpoint diversity at the ABA and more broadly.
Welcome and Introduction: Mary Smith, President of the American Bar Association
Panelists:
- Josh Blackman, Centennial Chair of Constitutional Law at the South Texas College of Law
- Ellen Rosenblum, Attorney General of the State of Oregon
- Juan Thomas, Of Counsel, Quintairos, Prieto, Wood & Boyer P.A.
- Philip D. Williamson, Partner, Teft Stettinius & Hollister LLP
Moderator: Hon. Danny J. Boggs, U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
This panel will discuss whether ABA policies, programs, and membership sufficiently reflect the diversity of viewpoints within the legal profession. Then-ABA President and future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell warned almost 60 years ago: "it is essential that the basic policy of avoiding political involvement be strictly followed except where issues clearly involve the Association's primary responsibilities," arguing that delving into partisan politics "could jeopardize the Association's very existence." As the self-described "national voice of the legal profession," the ABA represents all types of lawyers, with differing political views, and has now adopted many policy positions "on diverse issues of importance to the legal profession" including access to justice, criminal justice reform, gun violence, social justice in voting and many more.
Recognizing that we live in an era of sharp political and policy divisions, a recent ABA president asked that we as attorneys focus on "civics, civility and collaboration" to collectively restore confidence in our legal system. Other leaders urge that the ABA must speak out on controversial issues, on which consensus does not exist, even when lawyers disagree. One of our panelists recently observed in the ABA Journal that the Association "needs ideological diversity to ensure its future." While recognizing that "many attorneys contend that the ABA is insufficiently progressive and the bar is too conservative," he argues that present policies and positions of the Association lack the full spectrum of views, "alienate conservative lawyers" and have likely contributed to declining membership and "a growing disconnect" with state bars on issues of professional conduct and diversity. A new caucus within the ABA has organized to investigate and advocate on these issues and hopes this panel starts a conversation about diversity of viewpoints and professionalism within the ABA.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"many attorneys contend that the ABA is insufficiently progressive and the bar is too conservative,"
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot.....
The ABA is to the Left of the American mainstream, so if there are "many" attorneys who actually believe this, we truly are heading toward a Revolution. Remember that a lot of British Americans were lawyers in 1776.
“we truly are heading toward a Revolution“
Keep fuckin that chicken!
Well, what happened in 5 years (1969-1974) could be called a revolution. We ousted a President who had been elected two years earlier in a 49 state landslide and -- amongst other things -- imposed a lot of new regulations on what was then a White Male legal profession.
The ABA shut down under a Georgia-like RICO statute -- I could live with that...
“Georgia-like RICO statute”
Lay off the cutty sark
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/the-standoff-at-gate-36-texas-sends-in-the-troops-to-block-migrants-from-seeking-asylum/ar-BB1kCaNx
We're not going to take it much longer.
I’m quaking in my boots Ed.
You’re such a pathetic do nothing whiner. What are you waiting for?
The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog of All-Talk, Pusillanimous, Blustering Conservatives
I don't think anyone commenting while hiding behind a pseudo can refer to others as pusillanimous, lol
"Are the ABA and the legal profession doing enough to promote viewpoint diversity?"
My impression is that the ABA is doing basically everything it thinks it can get away with, and maybe a bit more, to SUPPRESS viewpoint diversity.
Yes, Brett, we all know that you pay little attention to anything other than what happens to bubble up on your outrage media feed.
It gets reported on here at the Conspiracy, you know. It's not like I'd have to go far to see evidence of it.
See, for instance, ABA Model Rule 8.4(g) Cannot Survive the Supreme Court’s Recent Decisions in NIFLA and Matal
Or The American Bar Association’s “Diversity” Agenda Endangers the Integrity of the Legal Profession
Stay mired in the clingerverse, Mr. Bellmore. That's where you will be happiest, that is where you belong, and I doubt many members of the modern American mainstream will regret your absence from their midst.
Would you mind sharing with us why you believe a DEI based system is superior to a merit based system?
Which merit-based system?
The one that leads to intense affirmative action for Federalist Society members in the context of hiring for taxpayer-funded positions (federal judicial clerks)?
The one that leads to law schools hiring outspoken, fringe conservatives for faculty positions as a nod to diversity?
The one that provides special privilege to candidates who claim to be superstitious who served in the military?
The one that has generated an inexplicably white, odds-defyingly-male roster at a faux libertarian blog published by and for disaffected right-wingers -- which is, not surprisingly, a safe space for (and overrun by) racists, misogynists, immigrant-haters, gay-bashers, antisemites, white supremacists, Islamophobes, transphobes, Christian nationalists, white nationalists, and un-American write-offs?
Or is there another you have in mind, clinger?
(I think it has been a week or so since this blog published a vile racial slur -- do Federalist Society members figure this puts this blog's bigotry far enough in the past to ignore?)
The one that has morons and idiots driving our boats, commanding our military, and sitting in our top court rooms because they are black, dykes, queers, or other culture losers.
These are your fans, Volokh Conspirators . . . and the reason Prof. Volokh is about to become a former member of the academy.
Carry on, clingers.
All you bitter clingers need to understand that when white people lose it's good and when Black, Diverse, Individuals of Pigment win it's good. A merit-based system stops BDIP from achieving as many positions because it prevents intelligent experts like myself from hiring them based on race and penis-size.
Bitter clingers are easily refuted by rhetorical questions entirely unsupported by any type of reasoning. I don't have to respond to them because I'm smart.
Parodying an already tiresomely repetitive troll is not going to be as amusing as you think it could be. Nor, I might suggest, will you be able to keep it up for very long.
One reply from the bitterest of clingers, my mentor Arthur C. Kirkland, will make my day.
Who is Arthur C. Kirkland?
(Blackman, is that you?)
Calling anything that gets cherry-picked for your consumption here as "reporting" helpfully illustrates how skewed your information diet is. If you think this site provides a reasonably reliable account, then one wonders what sorts of sites you visit for news you believe is intentionally curated for your ideological preferences.
To wit: you've linked to incoherent opinion pieces from the Federalist Society and the Heritage Foundation. Really outstanding googling there, Brett. Maybe if you knew what a good argument looked like, you would have dug a bit more for something less risible.
I'm sometimes astonished at how quickly and blithely you discredit yourself.
Seemed fairly coherent to me. But I understand you're going to be a bit defensive about efforts you likely support.
The point is that 'ABA is doing basically everything it thinks it can get away with' comes from a skewed perspective.
Though your assumed ad hominem in response is the kind of disengaged, empty rhetoric that shows it's more than your news consumption that's skewed.
Again, you apparently don't know what a good argument is; your response here is just an ad hominem. The Federalist Society piece in particular was a real howler. Very confident in its conclusion, very evasive about its actual legal reasoning.
Here's a tip, Brett: You can't just cite a case on a topic and wave it around while asserting, again and again, "So too here," without explaining exactly how the case and its reasoning applies to the present example. Vibes are not an argument.
Conservatives don't use google.
Google manipulates search results and interferes in our elections.
Conservatives also don't use science, modernity, mainstream news gatherers, the reality-based world, reason, advanced communities, our strongest research and teaching institutions, mainstream entertainments, or mainstream organizations.
Instead, conservatives increasingly limit themselves to separatist organizations, backwater religious (nonsense-based) schools, disaffected groups, wingnut media, and increasingly desolate, bigoted backwaters.
Conservatives are entitled to do as they wish. But they should not expect to be respected by better Americans.
I use duckduckgo.com
KKK, just so I'm clear, what Meta and Google do interferes with our elections, except insofar as foreign actors like Russia and China make use of their algorithms in order to spread misinformation and divide the public, in which case they're not interfering because we can't point to any particular election result that can be causally linked to those foreign actors' actions.
Is that about where you stand? Or are you not able to see that these two MAGA canards are inconsistent with each other?
Simon, factually correct information exists independently of the persons who report it.
Hey fuckwit, read the thread.
Wait, your evidence that the ABA is trying to suppress viewpoint diversity is that they want to encourage colleges to admit more underrepresented groups and to prohibit discrimination and harassment in the practice in law?
I get how you can maybe disagree with the policies, but neither of them has anything to do with suppressing anytime anyone's viewpoint. Unless you think harassment is a viewpoint, I guess.
MAGA tells us who they are, in so many ways.
Because yes, harassment is a viewpoint, for them. That's what their whole political movement is about. It's about "retribution," it's about getting back at their "enemies." It's not about the health needs of kids who think they're trans and it's not about school curricula that has gotten too heavy with ideology. It's about harassing kids, parents, teachers, and librarians; it's about harassing Black people and LGBT people; it's about fucking things up and letting someone else figure out what to do next.
There's no difference, to them, between harassment and speech that pushes their politics in a merely high-octane way. The harassment is the point.
Bigots gonna bigot. Clingers gonna cling.
Especially at the white, male, right-wing Volokh Conspiracy!
The debate over 8.4(g) is a bit more complicated than that. For instance, no one supports discrimination or harassment as they are defined through the law, but the model rule 8.4(g) didn't tether its definitions to the law. Read the transcript of the debate. Do you want Juan Thomas deciding what is and is not discrimination or harassment?
A lot of the problem was not the goal, but the wording about definitions and the scope of the rule. Hardly any states adopted the ABA rule wholesale. Many made changes to allay concerns like those put forth by the Fed Soc in that link.
Ellen Rosenblum: Thank you for the question. It is interesting to be on a panel, really about the ABA, but also about the legal profession with such diverse, not just viewpoints, but backgrounds. I'm sitting next to someone who's not a member, right? Or you're becoming a member.
Josh Blackman: I am. My school pays for my dues. It's not by choice.
Ellen Rosenblum: So you're forced to be a member.
Josh Blackman: Yeah.
Ellen Rosenblum: Okay. Welcome to the ABA. We're happy to have you.
Josh Blackman: Thank you.
LMFAO
How frequently must the American Bar Association publish vile racial slurs to persuade Josh Blackman (and perhaps a few other Volokh Conspirators) to pay dues?
Would once every couple of years suffice? Several times a year? Monthly?
If holding out for a frequency approximating the Volokh Conspiracy's longstanding record concerning habitual publishing of racial slurs, however, some of these white, male, bigot-hugging conservatives may never become ABA members.
Twice, apparently.
The majority of MDs no longer belong to the AMA....
Oh my god. Does Josh have students? Do they take him seriously? Or do they just not know better or care (after all being at the South Texas College of Law Houston)?
They chose South Texas College of Law Houston, one of a handful of America's worst law schools (although not necessarily the least expensive). Do you need to know more about their judgment or level of insight?
I understood the ABA's political compass a decade ago when, as a new member of the bar enjoying a free year of membership, I read with displeasure the ABA president's editorial advocating for more gun control laws. Even aside from that, it was clear the ABA was (and probably still is) beholden to ideology and not apolitical advancement of the the legal profession across all types of practitioners--including small firms and solos.
Given the cost of dues, it's almost certainly comprised of members from BigLaw, government lawyers, and (apparently) law school faculty. Those memberships are likely also the product of a limited few decisionmakers who choose to have their staff enrolled (e.g., managing partners and school admins/deans) irrespective of the individual members' choice. I personally don't know any lawyers who are actually members of the ABA by their own choice. From my objective view, the ABA is there to perpetuate progressive ideology (including through actual lobbying for substantive changes to the law, not just those that affect the profession) and perpetuate BigLaw's business model (low cost grads, high burnout rate).
And for what it's worth, the ABA's publications are also garbage.
Lack of mutual ( heathy supporting ) perspectives dooms all.
Seems today "progressive" mantra is a foolish immaturity to the misguided 'Moral Majority' of years past which was a backlash to the '60s' era, and on and on to way back to the unassimilated masses brought over during the mid-1800s and on.
The Pledge of Allegiance was a very poor attempt to bond all with a jumble of nonsense words and phrases not having any realistic basis worthy of uttering. ( Icons, are pre-religious groupthink markers )
Diversity is pushed based not on the important factors of internal formations, but rather on the useless crap of external looks. Seeking not a union of minds diverse enough to keep the societal pool of abilities, interests, and so on, today's continuing external shell conglomeration is bound to be too thin in supporting further life.
And that the past chair of the civil rights committee called Josh a white supremacist and then the panel moderator refused to let him respond should say everything there is about the ABA's "diversity" of viewpoints. Wow. Much credit to Josh for maintaining his composure.
First, I did not hear that presenter call Josh a white supremacist. I heard Josh ascribe that claim to the other panelist, in my judgment unfairly. The presenter was addressing the longstanding, seemingly natural relationships among conservatives and our society's vestigial bigots (it wasn't the "Unite the Left" rally in Charlottesville) and conservatives' general antipathy toward progress designed to address important, longstanding wrongs.
Second, that moderator is a certified, hard-right, Federalist Society-Mont Pelerin Society conservative and an ardent (anti-)social justice warrior, a lifelong Republican who worked in the Reagan administration. If you are contending the ABA could have chosen a better candidate to moderate the panel, you might have a point. If you are contending that his conduct reflected ABA bias against conservatives, you are uninformed and wrong.
Other than that, though . . . great comment!
Prof. Blackman did clerk for the moderstor, so he’d know better than anyone the value of shutting him up when he’s about to say something stupid.
It was too late. Prof. Blackman had already said something stupid and false.
I'm not a member of the ABA. I just don't see value in the organization.
I would wager that, if the ABA does skew "left," it probably has something to do with the fact that you have to choose to pay dues and become a member. And you don't choose to do that unless you have some reason to do so. It probably skews left the same reason that the ACLU does. Your money is coming from people who won't give it to you unless they care about your mission and the work you're doing. And conservatives don't give a shit about anyone besides themselves.
ABA members tend to be properly educated. They probably prefer reason to superstition. They probably tend to reside in educated, modern, successful, diverse communities. They likely have marketable skills and are not disaffected misfits or intolerant culture war casualties.
I would be shocked if they did not tend to be less conservative and Republican than average.
Einstein: "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
The notion of viewpoint diversity seems unlimited. No doubt, Blackman thinks his viewpoints ought to be encompassed. Seems fair to ask why that would not be stupid.
What is the argument for skin color, lifestyle choices, self-identification, or sex diversity that doesn't also apply to viewpoint diversity?
Competent adults neither advance nor accept superstition-based (supernatural, religious) assertions in reasoned debate among competent adults. People are entitled to believe and speak as they wish; they are not entitled to have educated, modern adults treat nonsense (or old-timey bigotry, even if cloaked in religion) with respect.
Your script is broken. Last months schtick is out of context to my current question.
Respecting viewpoints based on nonsense, dogma, superstition, bigotry, and belligerent ignorance does not constitute or advance diversity.
Ask someone with a degree from a strong school to explain this to you. If necessary, drive through several towns to find such a person. It would be a worthwhile trip.
Three clingers among five seated at the table, including a right-wing moderator, seems relatively diverse.
What the conservatives seem to want is more mainstream, professional acceptance of obsolete bigots and bigotry; more respect and special privilege for old-timey superstition; and more respect for vote-targeting vote suppressors, un-American insurrectionists, delusional QAnon-MAGA fans, and half-educated Christian dominionists.
Being on the wrong side of history, the weaker side at the marketplace of ideas, and the losing side of the culture war does and should have consequences. Prof. Blackman's forecast with respect to the future of the American Bar Association is more severely the predictable destiny of the Federalist Society. How many fledgling bigots and aspiring clingers can one expect to find among the educated, modern group that attends law school (other than Regent, Liberty, Ave Maria, Brigham Young, Notre Dame, and -- perhaps soon -- Ouachita Baptist, Oral Roberts, and Hillsdale)?
Federalist Society members -- like members of the Republican National Lawyers Association, militias, Fox News-Newsmax-One America viewers, and Ayn Rand fans -- tend to be white, male, older, backwater, and disaffected with respect to modern, improving America. Good luck down the road with that as America continues to improve against your wishes and efforts, Republicans, conservatives, and faux libertarians.
You cry alot.
This entire blog is one extended, pathetic, right-wing whine. Maybe whiners and whimperers are the target audience?
Related:
https://www.chronicle.com/article/indiana-has-a-new-law-enforcing-intellectual-diversity-heres-what-it-might-mean
It seems clear from the discussion that while the ABA was founded as a legal profession advocacy organization, it's been captured by the left and there isn't a lot of interest on the left within the ABA for staying out of politically controversial issues along the left/right divide.
As a result, more folks on the right will continue to leave/ignore the ABA and that evaporative effect has pushed the ABA even farther left over time, in terms of membership.
The choice for the ABA seems simple:
If you want an effective ABA for the legal profession, step back from being yet another left-wing advocacy organization. Otherwise, you are the latter and not the former.
Based on this panel, I'd predict the choice for those currently running the ABA is going to be to just be another left-wing org, so then the choice for everyone else in the legal profession is either the reverse the "march through the institutions" by joining en masse, or else leave completely and work to remove any special privileges the ABA has under the law.
Probably that second path is what's going to happen over time, because those currently in control of the ABA are too ideologically blinded and short-sided to not skinsuit the organization and throw away it's accumulated credibility over time.
You seem to misunderstand which side has won the American culture war and how long the established trajectory of American progress is destined to continue -- and, perhaps more important, who the losers are and will continue to be.
Th fact that the ABA is nothing more than a left wing influence group has been common knowledge for decades. The Bush administration stopped cooperating with their judge ratings programs back in 2001.
And that was a late response to demands from conservative activists going back many years prior.
"many attorneys contend that the ABA is insufficiently progressive and the bar is too conservative,"
People with that kind of brain damage should not be practicing law
Why not join en mass and start bulling your way around. Unless they are weasels who will try to get you fired, you should be fine.
Naw....they'd rather quit (see recent congressional resignations).
Conservatives have been losing for 200+ years so they're used to it.
They tried something in the 1860s and lost (and have been paying since), and CONTRARY TO DR. ED 2'S WET DREAMS, there's zero chance of any successful violent uprising.
Conservatives . . . getting their asses kicked by better Americans at the modern marketplace of ideas since they were born!
I am going to get taken to ask about these comments.
If I have to answer 'why' I have an opinion, then that is an impediment to me wanting to give it. If I do not agree with a divisive opinion the board has made, then I will no longer want to participate or join that organization.
When my son was looking at colleges, he left one college presentation saying he did not want to go to that college because their focus was on diversity, not their students.
Your son sounds like an apt candidate for Oral Roberts, Bob Jones, Franciscan, Ouachita Baptist, Brigham Young, or Wheaton. A "real American," as you would perceive it.
Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland, Is there anything wrong with that? FYI, he was not going to college for law or a humanities degree, so your perceptions are inaccurate.
Thanks for your input.
Send him to one of those nonsense-based, shit-rate, right-wing schools. My grandchildren will get to compete economically with those yahoos.
I hope your child improves and choose a better path. Otherwise . . . The world needs antisocial, disaffected, anti-woke ditchdiggers, too.
Thank you for your kind response. You have read past my comment and applied your filter to my comments and question.
This kind of response may be a reason of why the public perception of the ABA is what it is.
Yeah Mr. Thomas came off as a bit unhinged.
He is America's improving, successful future.
You are America's regrettable, failed past.
Try to cope better.