INTRODUCTION

The Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic and the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law stand in firm opposition to the American Bar Association’s (“ABA”) proposed repeal of Standard 206. . . . The [ABA Council’s] proposed repeal is flawed for several reasons: 1) repealing Standard 206 would constitute preemptive compliance with overbroad and legally dubious Executive pressure; 2) the ABA already proposed modifications to Standard 206 that are fully responsive to the Court’s ruling in [Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harv. Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (“SFFA”)] and 3) the ABA must ensure that the legal profession is held to the highest standards, which necessarily includes diversity and anti-discrimination measures. Howard’s Civil Rights Clinic conducted a survey of students at law schools across the country to evaluate the current environment concerning diversity efforts at law school and the potential harm that a repeal of Standard 206 poses to law schools across the nation. A summary of those results is provided below.

I. Repealing Standard 206 would represent preemptive and unnecessary compliance with overbroad Executive pressure.

The proposed repeal of Standard 206 represents the Council’s preemptive compliance with overbroad and legally dubious Executive pressure, ranging from vague anti-diversity proclamations to an explicit (but unfounded) threat that Standard 206 violates the law. The ABA proactively updated Standard 206 to respond to SFFA and should stand by those significant revisions instead of abandoning the Standard in response to thinly-veiled and coercive enforcement threats made by this Administration. . . .

II. The ABA already proposed modifications to Standard 206 that are fully responsive to SFFA v. Harvard. A full repeal of the modified Standard 206 is unnecessary.

[omitted in its entirety for length]

III. The ABA must ensure that the legal profession is held to the highest standard, which necessarily includes diversity measures.

The legal profession has unique obligations tied to legitimacy and justice. As the Supreme Court has long recognized, “[l]awyers are essential to the primary governmental function of administering justice.” Goldfarb v. Va. State Bar, 421 U.S. 773, 792 (1975). The legitimacy of the justice system is strengthened when the profession is accessible, and law schools foster a sense of belonging, as this leads to cross-cultural understanding, better advocacy, and greater public confidence. . . . A legal profession that lacks diversity cannot credibly claim to deliver justice in a diverse society. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306, 332 (2003) (recognizing that “[t]he path to leadership must be visibly open to talented and qualified individuals of every race and ethnicity.”). Standard 206 . . . is necessary to satisfy that objective . . . because law schools have a long history of race-exclusive barriers, leading to persisting racial disparities in the legal profession. And diversity in the legal profession leads to better outcomes for everyone.

 

A. Law schools have a long history of race-exclusive barriers.

Law schools have a long history of excluding Black students. Several lawsuits against law schools in the 1930s and 40s challenged racially exclusionary practices that prevented Black students from enrolling.¹ Law schools at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (“HBCUs”) were birthed out of this history of segregation at predominantly white law schools and the need to create spaces where Black students could be educated as lawyers.² Measures like Standard 206 are necessary to ensure that law schools do not backslide and continue to rise to a mandate of inclusion that accounts for this history and ongoing racial disparities in the legal profession.

 

B. Repeal would exacerbate existing disparities in the legal profession.

The history of racial exclusion in and systemic barriers to entry to law schools permeates the legal profession to the present day. The percentages of Black and Latinx law students remain relatively low in comparison to their white counterparts, with Black students making up 7.5% of the law school student population though they are 13.7% of the population, and Latinx students making up 14.5% of the law school student population though 20% of the U.S. population overall. The ABA must push law schools to actively identify and remove the structural barriers that contribute to these persisting racial disparities.

Additionally, most first-generation law students come from historically underserved groups.³ On average, these students face significantly greater financial pressure during their time in law school. The ABA has an obligation to ensure that these students receive institutional support and resources that can help ensure that they thrive and succeed in law school. . . .

[L]aw schools continue to abandon, without basis or good reasoning, efforts that concern diversity, even resorting to self-censure and complete silence concerning diversity.⁴ The ABA must be a check on the indefensible abandonment of diversity that threatens to harm legal education and the legal profession generally. The unnecessary abandonment of diversity-related discussions and efforts would only escalate were the ABA to repeal Standard 206.

To make matters worse, law firms have in recent years rolled back tailored programs that were geared toward remedying barriers across the profession, further exacerbating existing disparities. Recent data shows that, for the second consecutive year, the representation of Black or African American summer associates at law firms has declined, while law school enrollment data reveals similar decreases among Black and Hispanic students.⁵ Although overall diversity numbers have shown modest gains, those gains are fragile and uneven, and due mostly to an increase in the number of Asian American students. More importantly, these disparities widen over time, as the National Association for Law Placement explains, associates of color “convert to partners at much lower rates than White associates,” resulting in a nearly 20 percentage point gap between associate and partnership representation. At the current pace, it will take nearly 27 years for partners of color to reach parity with where associates of color stand today. At the highest levels of the profession, only 10.2% of equity partners are people of color, and just 24.8% are women. And the pressure to dismantle diversity initiatives is already negatively impacting the legal profession. After SFFA, anti–civil rights advocates have weaponized the Court’s decision to challenge diversity-related programs at major law firms. As a result, several firms have either scaled back or eliminated programs designed to address structural barriers, or historic patterns of exclusion. Standard 206 is necessary to help encourage law firms to eliminate barriers to opportunity for underrepresented groups.

These trends are particularly troubling because social science research confirms that diversity in legal education is essential to producing lawyers capable of serving an increasingly diverse society. Students in diverse academic environments demonstrate stronger critical thinking skills, greater cognitive complexity, and a more developed ability to engage across cultures. Long-term studies also show that such exposure enhances individuals’ capacity to recognize inequality, strengthens their sense of professional purpose, and increases civic engagement. These outcomes directly align with the competencies required of lawyers. See Model Rules of Prof’l Conduct r. 6.1. . . . Standard 206 reflects the ABA’s longstanding recognition that diversity strengthens the profession and enhances the administration of justice. . . .

In the wake of significant rollbacks by law schools and law firms to their diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, Standard 206 is necessary to provide law schools with guardrails and guidance to ensure all students can participate fully and without fear of hostility or intimidation. Eliminating this standard may send the opposite message and leave students from historically marginalized backgrounds to endure alienating conditions without meaningful institutional support.

 

IV. IV. The Civil Rights Clinic’s 2026 Survey of Law Schools Across the Nation Demonstrates the Effects of the Proposed Repeal on the Law School Experience.

The Civil Rights Clinic at Howard University School of Law conducted a recent survey of Black students attending law schools across the nation to better understand their perceptions of how universities have responded to this administration’s wholesale, and often unlawful, attack on diversity and equity. Our goal is to provide the ABA with new information from respondents’ perspectives, regarding the current environment on law school campuses in the wake of the administration’s wholesale assault on diversity. The survey asked students about law schools’ responses to the SFFA ruling and the administration’s various executive orders and lawsuits concerning diversity, admissions, recruiting, and financial aid. The survey also sought information on the academic experience and student life. The sample is representative of students from coast to coast and includes both students at predominantly white institutions (“PWIs”) and HBCUs.

At least 57% of respondents indicated that the lack of diversity undermines their ability to receive an adequate educational experience, and 71% percent of surveyed students reported that the lack of diversity affects their ability to participate in class, events, or activities. For example, one student at Washington University in St. Louis shared that their peers have grown more hesitant to express their identities in academic spaces, that discussions at the intersection of law and identity feel diluted, and that engagement on social justice issues in the classroom has noticeably declined. Another student at Texas Tech School of Law identified significant changes in campus climate, noting that “students [of color] fear being in law school” and “many of the students [who oppose DEIA] are extremely vocal, which creates an unwelcoming environment.”

Organizations like the Black Law Student Association (“BLSA”) have provided a critical space for students to build relationships and feel a sense of belonging within institutions that may not otherwise reflect their experiences. They have also organized important and inclusive public education programming that complements the law school experience for all. While 90% of surveyed students reported having affinity groups at their law school, some students believe there are no safe and supportive environments to discuss diverse perspectives.

Moreover, affinity organizations across the country have faced increasing restrictions on both funding and programming choices. For example, one student at Texas Tech School of Law noted that the institution places limitations on BLSA’s ability to use language concerning diversity, equity, and inclusion, and places limitations on whom BLSA can invite to their events. A student at Washington University in St. Louis described a similar dynamic and noted that there is now a “watchful eye” over their approach to fundraising, including who they solicit and how. The student also expressed that BLSA lacks meaningful leadership support from the dean. . . .

The consequences of diminished support are tangible and immediate. Students at Pepperdine Law reported that BLSA is unable to send members to education-related conferences, host events regularly, or provide adequate resources to its membership. As noted by a Columbia law student, less support from the schools means less funding for BLSA events, fewer firm partnerships, and a broader signal to the legal industry that “there is no longer special value in engaging with affinity organizations.” The repeal of Standard 206 would ultimately remove the one tool that the ABA has used to encourage institutions to foster environments where all students can thrive.

Survey responses also reveal a pattern in which law schools respond to the Trump Administration’s attack on diversity, equity, and inclusion with silence and retreat. Over 80% of respondents answered that, in their view, their law school has failed to take action to defend policies that promote a healthy and inclusive environment. Students reported that many law schools have failed to provide clear communication regarding federal and state attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts and most students are not confident that their university leadership will resist preemptive and unnecessary action when it comes to diversity, equity and inclusion. Also, multiple students reported that their school has censored certain language on their forms, websites, and social media pages, commonly when the language centers principles of diversity. Lastly, more than one-third of students confirmed that their schools have removed certain diversity-related initiatives.

We also assessed the current state of scholarship opportunities or specialized programs since SFFA was decided. Students at Pepperdine Law reported that the school no longer advertises or offers its HBCU scholarship. Several students reported notable changes. Similarly, a first-year law student at Columbia Law School cited a “removal of diversity scholarships” as a perceived change to the institution’s funding opportunities. Separately, a student at Washington University School of Law noted that the institution removed orientation programming that had been tailored for underrepresented students. These actions make the legal profession less accessible for historically disadvantaged groups. Overall, our survey results underscore the need for the ABA to maintain Standard 206.

 

CONCLUSION

Diversity is not illegal. Equity is not illegal. Inclusion is not illegal. Indeed, these principles are hallmarks of the legal profession and of our democracy. . . .

Repeal of Standard 206 would exacerbate existing inequities in access to legal education to persist, despite the Court’s recognition that education is “the very foundation of good citizenship” and must be made available on equal terms. Brown v. Bd. of Educ., 347 U.S. 483, 493 (1954). Overlooking underserved communities is the opposite of equal treatment. Equality of opportunity can be achieved, however, through holistic evaluation, intentional recruitment of historically excluded groups, and sustained academic and financial support. Because law schools are the “gateway to the legal profession,” the ABA must carry out its long-standing and central role and responsibility of ensuring that law schools are not only open in theory but genuinely open and accessible in practice.

1. See Carl W. Tobias, Brown and the Desegregation of Virginia Law Schools, 39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 39 at 41-44 (2004) (discussing the cases that Thurgood Marshall took on to desegregate law schools between the 1930s and 1940s). ↑
2. See Harold R. Washington, History and Role of Black Law Schools, 5 N.C. Cent. L. Rev. 2 (1974),https://archives.law.nccu.edu/ncclr/vol5/iss2/4. ↑
3. Anthony E. Varona, The Plight and Promise of Today’s First-Gen Law Students, A.B.A. (Mar. 19, 2025), https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/2025-march/plight-promise-todays-first-gen-law-students/. ↑
4. See Christine Charnosky, Law Schools Are Quietly Changing DEI Messaging. What Does That Mean for Big Law’s Future Talent Pipeline, Am. Law. (June 24, 2025), https://www.law.com/americanlawyer/2025/06/24/law-schools-are-quietly-changing-dei-messaging-what-does-that-mean-for-big-laws-future-talent-pipeline/. ↑
5. Nat’l Ass’n for L. Placement, 2024 Report on Diversity in U.S. Law Firms (2024), https://www.nalp.org/reportondiversity. Though the National Association for Law Placement issued a 2025 report, it cautioned against use of that data for evaluating longer-term trends because of a substantial decline in the 2025 respondent pool. https://www.nalp.org/uploads/PressReleases/2025DiversityReportMediaRelease0326.pdf. ↑