ABA Opens Door for Law Schools to Meet DEI Requirements by Criticizing Diversity Initiatives

The American Bar Association (ABA) has taken a significant step in revising its accreditation standards for law schools, suspending a long-standing diversity and inclusion requirement while signaling a new approach to compliance.

In a recent development, the ABA suspended Standard 206 of its Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, which previously mandated law schools to demonstrate a "commitment to diversity and inclusion." This suspension, however, does not mark the end of all DEI-related requirements.

Standard 303(c) remains in effect, obligating law schools to "provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism" at least twice before graduation. Daniel Thies, Chair of the Council of the ABA's Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, addressed this in a letter to the editor, clarifying the council's position.

The ABA's Council, which holds final authority over accreditation standards, has proposed a permanent repeal of Standard 206, effective as early as August 2025. Since February 2025, the council has maintained silence on DEI in accreditation standards, reflecting a shift in policy.

Thies emphasized that Standard 303(c) does not prescribe specific content for compliance. Schools are free to design their educational sessions, including discussions on the potential harms of diversity requirements or the importance of religious liberty. This flexibility, he argued, allows institutions to meet the standard even by critiquing DEI initiatives.

Thies cited his own experience as an example. He has delivered Continuing Legal Education (CLE) talks challenging state "Anti-Bias" requirements, including the ABA's Model Rule 8.4(g), on grounds of unconstitutionality. Despite these challenges, the talks were approved for CLE credit, demonstrating that criticism of DEI can still fulfill compliance obligations.

Looking ahead, Thies suggested that a religious law school, for instance, could satisfy Standard 303(c) by highlighting how DEI programs may infringe upon religious liberty. While it remains uncertain whether law schools will adopt this approach, the ABA's stance provides a strategic opening for future legal and policy debates, particularly in potential conflicts with the U.S. Department of Education.

This development underscores the ABA's evolving stance on DEI in legal education, balancing compliance with broader institutional values and freedoms.