Earlier this year, I wrote an article
about the lengths to which racial activists like University of Dayton Professor Vernellia Randall
will go to get less qualified but racially-correct students into law school. Here’s a short update:
In February, the American Bar Association approved revisions
to its accreditation standards. Object: to make diversity more of a requirement than a suggestion in law school admissions.
The committee added, in a feat of bureaucratic redundancy, the word “Non-Discrimination
” to the title, making it the standard of “Non-Discrimination and Equal Opportunity
”. Several other changes were made, as the committee attempted to clarify the exquisite difference between non-discrimination and equal opportunity and non-discrimination and diversity.
There was also an attempt to determine who should benefit from these standards, and what exactly law schools should do to maintain them.
This last effort was redoubled earlier this month, when the Commission on Civil Rights initiated a five-hour long debate over the diversity debacle. There are fears that the bar association requires schools to break the law in order to maintain diversity, since the standards require that
a law school shall demonstrate, by concrete action, a commitment to providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, and a commitment to having a study body that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.
Also up for debate was the issue of whether affirmative action actually helps or hinders those who gain admission through its policies.
From what I read, the discussions turned into chaotic statistical bickering
One wonders how much longer there will be any standards left worth revising.
After all, as I quoted diversity advocate Randall saying: “failing is not about intellect in law school.”