ABA Standard 206 Blog Symposium | On Behalf of the Law Faculty at the University of Washington School of Law

May 12, 2026

Dear Council Chair Thies:

This comment is submitted on behalf of the law faculty at the University of Washington School of Law in response to your Memorandum of February 26, 2026, requesting comments regarding the proposed repeal of Standard 206 (Diversity and Inclusion) by the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar (the “Council”).[1] That Memorandum sets forth a single reason for the proposed repeal of Standard 206, namely that “enacted and proposed laws at the state level have made it impossible for the Council to have a meaningful Standard 206 that can apply to every accredited school across the country.”[2]

As the State of Washington’s only public law school, we remain deeply committed to the principles and practices of diversity and inclusion embodied in Standard 206,[3] while ensuring ongoing compliance with relevant state laws and University policies that explicitly prohibit the granting of “preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.” Therefore, we believe our comments will help persuade the Council to maintain its commitment to ensuring access to the profession as set forth in Standard 206.

I. Purpose and Need for Standard 206

In November 2024, the Council sought notice and comment on proposed revisions to Standard 206.[4] Those revisions sought to respond in part to concerns regarding the scope and efficacy of the standard in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College.[5] Notwithstanding those concerns, the Council made clear its understanding at that time “that law schools are the gateway to the legal profession and that the profession administers our system of justice,” and that no less than “the legitimacy of our justice system is advanced by the inclusion of individuals from all backgrounds represented in our democracy.”[6] Thus, by the Council’s own measure, a continuing commitment to “promoting diversity and inclusion in the profession,” as expressly embodied in Standard 206 is critically important for “uphold[ing] the fundamental principles of equality and justice.”[7]

Unsurprisingly, that commitment further aligns with the Council’s own Core Principles and Values of Law School Accreditation, which include the goal of supporting and promoting the rule of law. The Council aims to ensure that, “[c]onsistent with the rule of law, the Standards should encourage participation in the profession by students, graduates and teachers from all backgrounds and ideologies.”[8] Similarly, the Council is committed to ensuring that the Standards “enable innovation,” and, while respecting the individual missions of each law school, the “Standards should support law professors and the next generation of lawyers and law students in improving the administration of justice.”[9] Standard 206 promotes these goals…

In addition to their centrality to the health and welfare of our educational institutions, the legal profession, and the justice system, each of these values and commitments are necessary in light of a long history of discrimination and exclusion by those same entities. The legacy of that exclusion is compounded by clear and present threats to our democracy, the rule of law, and academic freedom.[10] With respect to that historical marginalization, the ABA’s own history of discriminatory practices further make clear the need for significant remedial responsibilities...[11] Because of this exclusion from the legal profession… the burden to pursue litigation, policy changes, and other measures in order to gain fair access to the law school classroom, the state bar license, and full legitimacy and participation in the legal profession often fell on those marginalized communities and their allies.

The legacy of historical marginalization and the import of current threats is reflected in the current make up of our profession…

II. Meeting the Standard and Beyond

The purpose and need for Standard 206 remain critically important. Its mandate reflects not just the efforts required of our institutions but signals an important recognition of and commitment to the broader import of remedying past and present exclusionary measures. Our school has long wrestled with these challenges as we continue our efforts to meet both the letter and spirit of Standard 206 within the bounds of applicable federal and state standards.

From the very beginning, UW Law has sought to ensure opportunities for all. Our first graduating class from over 125 years ago included graduates who, whether because of race or gender, were prohibited or largely excluded from joining the legal profession—and, in at least one instance, from becoming a U.S. citizen—despite excelling in school.[12] For example, Takuji Yamashita, a graduate of the inaugural UW Law School class, was denied licensure by the Washington State Bar based solely on his Japanese citizenship.[13] After decades of advocacy on his behalf, including by our faculty, his license to practice law was ultimately conferred, although only in 2001, nearly a full century after his graduation.[14] Our stated commitments to diversity, inclusion, and support for all members of our community to succeed are part of the core values that we have long strived to fulfill.[15] Our values and commitments are set forth in our strategic plan and community norms, both of which seek to provide concrete foundation and measures by which we can act upon and implement those endeavors.[16] We also seek to support all of our students through a wide range of student organizations, leadership opportunities, events, and other opportunities.[17] Our commitment to student support also ensures students from all backgrounds and lived experiences have opportunities to maximize their health, wellness, educational and professional potential.[18] We strive to succeed in demonstrating the best of our values and, though we do not always succeed, we also recognize the importance of continuing our work to do so.

Enacted and proposed laws in other states are not a true barrier to applying and enforcing Standard 206. The University of Washington School of Law is a prime example of this. In 1998, Washington voters passed (Initiative Measure No. 200), which prohibits state universities from using race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in admissions decision, similar to many of the laws currently enacted and proposed in other state legislatures. Yet, we have been successful in both applying and complying with Standard 206 at all times. Our efforts with respect to diversity and inclusion must proceed with intentional awareness and consideration of the legal framework and context in which we operate. As noted above, for more than three decades since voters in the State of Washington adopted I-200, our efforts toward ensuring a diverse and inclusive student body, faculty, and staff have had to carefully ensure no preferential treatment, discrimination, or other inappropriate measures were taken to meet those goals.[19] Though enacted well before current efforts focused more specifically on the terms “diversity, equity, and inclusion,” as well as offices or staff tasked with that work, Washington law aligns with the prohibitions on preferential treatment proposed by the 2023 model legislation that has spurred many of the state laws proposed or enacted in recent years.[20] Thus, for more than a quarter century, all of our work toward supporting diversity and inclusion—including our compliance with the meaningful requirements of Standard 206—has been done with the goal of ensuring compliance with these applicable state mandates.

III. Conclusion

The purpose and need for Standard 206 weigh heavily in favor of at least retaining Standard 206, if not broadening and strengthening its mandate. Despite the importance and need for such progress, the Council proposes to repeal Standard 206 based on its “monitoring [of] legal developments at the state and federal…[21] Though such developments may create challenges for law schools across the country,[22] our experience shows that meaningful work toward promoting the critical values inherent in diversity and inclusion can and should continue to ensure our graduates are well trained to serve a diverse community. None of the proposed or enacted state laws or any of their potential effects… support the Council’s proposed wholesale abandonment of its commitment to diversity and inclusion... Furthermore, the Council’s existing standards, guidance and interpretations already accommodate and enable flexibility for law schools to both meet the Standard and comply with applicable law.[23] As other commenters have suggested, a simple amendment to Standard 206 could easily and expressly confirm this principle.[24] The Council cannot justify the repeal of Standard 206 and, therefore, should not move forward with this proposal.

  1. Matters for Notice and Comment: Standard 206 (Deadline: April 13, 2026), Feb. 26, 2026, available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/2026/notice-comments/2026-february-standard-206-repeal-notice-comment-memo.pdf [hereinafter 2026 Memorandum]. ↑
  2. Id. at 1. ↑
  3. See, e.g., Diversity, Equity and Inclusion: Our Commitment to Diversity, University of Washington School of Law, https://www.law.uw.edu/about/diversity (last visited Apr. 1, 2026). 4 RCW 49.60.400(1). ↑
  4. Matters for Notice and Comment: Standard 206 – Deadline: January 6, 2025, Nov. 18, 2024, available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/co uncil_reports_and_resolutions/nov24/24-nov-notice-comment-memo-standard-206.pdf [hereinafter Nov. 2024 Memorandum]. ↑
  5. 600 U.S. 181 (2023). ↑
  6. Nov. 2024 Memorandum, supra n. 5, at 2. (Emphasis added). ↑
  7. Id. ↑
  8. ABA, Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, Core Principles and Values of Law School Accreditation, August2025, 1-2, available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/20 25/core-principles-and-values-of-law-school-accreditation.pdf ↑
  9. Id. at 2. ↑
  10. See, e.g., Proposed repeal of Standard 206 (Diversity and Inclusion), Critical Legal Collective, 2 (Apr. 1, 2026), available at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HLJLVxhRp_aOJuDxt8LwNee4hSOUv3Gf/view (noting that this proposed repeal “arises squarely within a broader political campaign to reshape higher education governance, accreditation, and civil rights enforcement in ways that disfavor historically marginalized communities.”). ↑
  11. Id. at 3-8. ↑
  12. Hugh Spitzer, Diversity in UW Law’s Classes—125 Years Ago, University of Washington Magazine (March 2025), available at https://magazine.washington.edu/feature/the-uw-school-of-law-looks-back-on-125-years-ofeducation-and-diversity/. ↑
  13. Id. ↑
  14. Id. ↑
  15. See, e.g., Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, UW School of Law, https://www.law.uw.edu/about/diversity (last visited Apr. 4, 2026) (“UW Law's longstanding commitment to diversity is an extension of our commitment to excellence. At UW Law, we believe the best legal education integrates legal theory, doctrine and practice that must be delivered by a diverse faculty to a diverse student body.”) ↑
  16. See id. ↑
  17. See, e.g., Student Organizations and Law Journals, UW School of Law, https://www.law.washington.edu/students/orgs/default.aspx (last visited Apr. 4, 2026). ↑
  18. See, e.g., Student Support, UW School of Law, https://www.law.uw.edu/student-life/student-support (last visited Apr. 4, 2026). ↑
  19. RCW 49.60.400 (Initiative Measure No. 200, approved November 3, 1998). ↑
  20. See Christopher F. Rufo, Ilya Shapiro & Matt Beienburg, Abolish DEI Bureaucracies and Restore Colorblind Equality in Public Universities, January 2023, available at https://media4.manhattaninstitute.org/sites/default/files/model_dei_legislation013023.pdf. ↑
  21. 2026 Memorandum, supra n. 1, at 1. ↑
  22. See, e.g., DEI Legislation Tracker, The Chronicle of Higher Education, https://www.chronicle.com/article/hereare-the-states-where-lawmakers-are-seeking-to-ban-colleges-dei-efforts (last visited Apr. 4, 2026). ↑
  23. See, e.g., ABA, Managing Director’s Guidance Memo Standard 205, 3 (January 2024 (revised March 2025)), available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/gui dance-memos/2025/standard-205-guidance-memo-march-2025.pdf (“Standard 205 reflects the law schools’ continuous obligation to comply with federal and state antidiscrimination laws … When law schools are in an accreditation review … they should provide the reasons – such as state or federal laws, other authorities, or University policy – which limit the inclusion of any specific group. This approach helps to ensure that law schools are able to comply with the Standards consistent with applicable law or other requirements.”) (Emphasis added); Interpretation 206-1 (“The requirement of a constitutional provision or statute that purports to prohibit consideration of gender, race, ethnicity, or national origin in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school’s non-compliance with Standard 206. A law school that is subject to such constitutional or statutory provisions would have to demonstrate the commitment required by Standard 206 by means other than those prohibited by the applicable constitutional or statutory provisions.”) (Emphasis added); Interpretation 206-2 (“The forms of concrete action required by a law school to satisfy the obligations of this Standard are not specified […] Beyond the flexibility already incorporated by these interpretations, in an “extraordinary circumstance,” where complying with both Standard 206 and applicable law would result in “extreme hardship,” a law school could seek a variance in accordance with Standard 107. Standard 107. Variances, Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools 2025-2026, Chap.1, p. 10, available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/sta ndards/2025-2026/2025-2026-standards-and-rules-of-procedure-for-approval-of-law-schools.pdf. ↑
  24. See, e.g., Benjamin G. Davis, Comment on the Proposed Repeal of Standard 206 Diversity and Inclusion, 3, (March 21, 2026), available at https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/20 26/notice-comments/comments-received-standard-206-april.pdf (“While maintaining the Standard 206 commitment to diversity and inclusion, eight words added to the title of the standard and in the text at appropriate levels would solve the issue for all concerned by adding ‘in compliance with current federal and state laws.’”) ↑

Read more

Protecting Diversity and Inclusion Gains in Legal Education Against Backlash | Introduction to ABA Standard 206 Blog Symposium

The Council of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is the primary accreditor of law schools in the United States. ABA accreditation indicates that a law school meets certain requirements in...

By Athena D. Mutua, Mary Louise Frampton, Steven W. Bender, and Susan McMahon for the Critical Legal Collective
In Blog
May 12, 2026