ABA Releases "Core Principles and Values of Law School Accreditation"

Does this standard create room for ideological diversity?

The American Bar Association's section on Legal Education has released a set of "core principles and values" with regard to law school accreditation. At quick glance, this document seems largely to restate what has been said before. But one item jumped out at me.

Consistent with the rule of law, the Standards should encourage participation in the profession by students, graduates and teachers from all backgrounds and ideologies.

This is the only reference to diversity in the entire document. And they don't even use the d-word. And there are no synonyms like under-privileged or the like. What an amazing retreat from the never-ending stream of DEI  materials from the ABA? Moreover, this substantive goal can only be achieved "consistent with the rule of law." That is a roundabout way of saying "consistent with Title VI as interpreted by SFFA." I'm glad the ABA finally got the message.

Even more amazing is the reference to "ideologies." I think this is a way of saying the ABA now favors diversity of thought! That is, the ABA will now "encourage participation in the profession by students, graduates and teachers" on the political left and the right. Will overt and implicit political bias in faculty hiring now be subject to the ABA's scrutiny? I am skeptical. But this standard at least goes in the right direction.

Comments

[dwb68]

ABA is only virtue signalling its new-improved lack of virtue signalling; nothing has really changed.

I think that the change comes too late for the ABA to save itself.

[Supremacy Claus]

How about trying to get this most toxic profession out of utter failure across the board? The rule of law is an essential element for civilization and a decent life.
1) The fact that every self stated goal of every law subject is in utter failure should be severely punished. This profession must be cancelled and built from new. Its 2 biggest failures are war, with the immunity of the civilian originators of war. They and their entire families must become the first casualties of war, ending it. The second biggest failure is not responding to a billion crimes a year. The sole effective remedy in the criminal law is incapacitation. The best incapacitation is being deceased. The fentanyl epidemic is likely the strongest factor in any recent drop in crime.
2) End all supernatural doctrines. Eliminate every vestige of Scholasticism, a Catholic Church philosophy, illegal in our secular nation.
3) End its utter anti-scientific quackery. The definition of science is repeatability of results. That also happens to be the definition of justice. Subject all procedures to reliability and validation testing. They must score high because the stakes are high in the law.
4) End its garbage rent seeking and stealing of $1.5 trillion a year, and returning nothing of value.

[Reallynotbob]

You missed your pill this morning.

[Supremacy Claus]

Stale KGB point that dissenters are mentally ill. The lawyer believes in supernatural doctrines. Half the doctrines are constructed, which means, made up shit. The lawyer profession has anosognosia. It needs an involuntary commitment.

Volokh is an expert in the case law of tiny crosses in city flags. He is totally blind to the Catholic Church Scholasticism doctrines throughout the common law. The murder statute plagiarizes the catechism word for word. This is totally illegal in our secular nation. Volokh remains oblivious to this violation. He has anosognosia. What is its cause beside the carpet bombing of intellect by the lawyer education? Those $1.5 trillion a year they take and return nothing of value each year.

[Longtobefree]

"from all backgrounds and ideologies"

Wink wink

Except the right, the White, and the Asian.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

What?!? Males are suddenly acceptable? When did this happen?

[Brett Bellmore]

It's the peripheral principles and values that you need to worry about, would be my guess.

[Stupid Government Tricks]

Not the principal principles?

[Enrique]

No, it does not!

[Lee Moore]

Josh : I think this is a way of saying the ABA now favors diversity of thought!

That's not what it says. It's almost like Josh is not a lawyer. Parse the sentence :

Consistent with the rule of law, the Standards should encourage participation in the profession by students, graduates and teachers from all backgrounds and ideologies.

The recommended encouragement is for participation in the profession by students, graduates and teachers. It is not encouragement for these people holding inappropriate opinions, still less expressing them in college, possibly triggering nervous breakdowns in more sensitive students. Or faculty. Or admin staff.

[jb]

Lee shows us how to parse sentences by ignoring the final phrase entirely. I must have missed that part of the sentence diagramming exercise.

[Lee Moore]

You have managed to miss the point. Which I will spell out again at tedious length :

"The recommended encouragement is for participation in the profession by students, graduates and teachers [of whatever background or opinion]. It is not encouragement for these people [to hold] inappropriate opinions, still less [to express] them in college, possibly triggering nervous breakdowns in more sensitive students. Or faculty. Or admin staff."

The encouragement is for the people of diverse opinions participating in their profession; not encouragement for their voicing their opinions, still less voicing them in college.

[ducksalad]

Let's just suppose this represents a new commitment to ideological diversity.

1. Is it appropriate to have outright quotas? Is it appropriate to "consider" ideology in order to get balance as long as it isn't an outright quota? Are your answers the same regardless of whether it's gender/racial/ideological diversity?

2. Is it valid to engage in favoritism toward one ideology in order to correct/compensate/atone for past favoritism toward another ideology? Is your answer the same regardless of whether it's gender/racial/ideological diversity?

3. Does statistical imbalance prove the existence of discrimination, or is it possible that imbalance "naturally" occurs in the absence of discrimination? Is your answer the same regardless of whether it's gender/racial/ideological diversity?

4. If you favor institutions intentionally addressing one form of diversity, but have argued against the others, why? Is that some of them are real problems and others are just lies, or is some kind of Bellmorian Theory*? t

*The theory that "we" have to commit whatever wrongs "they" committed otherwise it's Calvinball and preventing Calvinball outweighs every other principle we claim to espouse.

[Reallynotbob]

Blackman's aggrieved about fostering "diversity" in the profession, but is fine with fostering "all backgrounds and ideologies."

It's literally the same thing but in politically correct words Blackman can tolerate. Such snowflakes.

[Doug Heffernan]

Does fostering ideological diversity require (in some cases) to relegate meritocracy to a lesser qualifier? I suppose two candidates of opposing ideological persuasions could have exactly equivalent credentials, but if one has even slightly more, what tips the choice selection; slightly better credentials, or membership in a minority ideological group?

[thesafesurfer]

The American Bar Association stands as one of the most destructive institutions to the United States of America in existence given its advocation of destructive ideological positions.

[vampire flames]

It will interesting to see if Judicial applications will now omit the questions about past fraternities, sororities or other all male or all female groups, e.g. Masonic associations?