Administration presses law school accreditor over DEI policies

By Morgan Sweeney
The Center Square

A U.S. House task force questioned the president of the American Bar Association in a hearing Wednesday about the organization’s commitment to diversity, equity and inclusion policies despite a 2025 executive order prohibiting “unlawful discrimination” in accreditation practices.

Wednesday’s hearing followed discussions of changes within the ABA in the more than a year since the Department of Education issued new guidance on DEI policies and President Donald Trump issued an executive order prohibiting them in accrediting bodies.

In April 2025, Trump issued an executive order titled “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” which was directed at the ABA Council and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, the only federally recognized accreditors for Juris Doctor and Doctor of Medicine programs. Although a few states have alternative pathways to bar eligibility, most states have historically required graduation from an ABA-accredited law school to take the bar exam and become a licensed attorney, making the ABA Council the dominant gatekeeper for entry into the legal profession. The same is true for LCME-accredited schools and the medical profession.

The council and the committee had, however, within roughly the past decade, mandated that law and medical schools demonstrate a commitment to DEI as part of the accreditation process. The Trump administration took issue with this criteria, calling DEI-promoting policies “unlawful discrimination,” and through the order, directed the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services to review the accreditation recognition of accreditors who “engage in unlawful discrimination in violation of federal law.”

The Education Department had also preceded the executive order by several months with a Dear Colleague letter, which expanded on the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which held that race-conscious admissions practices in higher education were unconstitutional.

The ABA Council has been hesitant to remove Standard 206, its primary diversity and inclusion accreditation rule, from its standards. At first, it suspended all enforcement of the standard through August 2026. That suspension was later extended to August 2027.

In May, however, the council voted to repeal the standard after a committee warned that failing to do so could jeopardize the ABA’s status as the federally recognized accreditor of U.S. law schools. But a voting body within the ABA must approve the repeal for it go forward. The ABA House of Delegates is set to debate and consider the proposed repeal at its annual meeting in August.

The standard requires that law schools must demonstrate their commitment to diversity and inclusion “by concrete action… by providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, and to having a student body that is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.” It also requires a faculty and staff that are “diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.”

The council has not yet voted to repeal its other diversity and inclusion accreditation rule, Standard 303C, which requires that law schools provide education on bias, racism and cross-cultural competency. It voted, also on May 15, to propose to repeal the rule. The public comment period on the proposal has ended, and after reviewing the comments, the council can then vote to repeal it.

ABA President Michelle Behnke defended diversity initiatives as bettering the legal profession.

“Diversity and excellence are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the opposite is true. Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives enhance merit within the legal profession. When we have diverse teams, our profession is stronger,” Behnke told lawmakers.

Zack Smith, senior legal fellow for the Heritage Foundation’s Legal Policy Center, said that Congress should ensure that the ABA can no longer be the profession’s gatekeeper.

“Congress and the executive branch should build on the good work that has been done and eliminate the ABA as the sole law school accreditor. Congress should update relevant statutory provisions to prohibit the recognition of any accreditor that imposes DEI requirements. And Congress should build on the work of states that have eliminated the ABA as the gatekeeper to state bar exams,” Smith said.

Several states have considered or amended their policies to open the door for other law school accreditors.

Democrats called the hearing “unserious,” noting that the witnesses included the ABA president but no one from the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, the ABA-affiliated accrediting body recognized by the Department of Education.

“I think this is a failure of this committee, showing how unserious this is because we don’t even understand apparently the basic structure of legal education,” said Rep. Dave Min, D-Calif. “We’re inviting the wrong witness to testify before this committee. This is not a minor failure… This is a bunch of mistruths, half truths, trying to create a smear campaign against the ABA and against law schools.”

The Center Square reached out to the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability, which established the task force that held Wednesday’s hearing, for clarity on the hearing’s witnesses but did not receive a response in time for publication.