Dear Chair Thies:
We are a group of law faculty collaborating on a grant-funded project on legal professional identity[1] and we write to oppose the repeal of Standard 206.
Our project lies at the intersection of a diversifying legal profession, professional identity formation, and threats to our democracy and the rule of law. Because of requirements like Standard 206, law schools have made modest gains in diversity and inclusivity—and indeed the past five years have been witnessing the most diverse incoming classes ever.[2] At the same time, however, and uncoincidentally, the very communities increasingly constituting the profession—people of color, LGBTQ+, and first-generation students, in particular—once again are subject to intensified scapegoating while attacks on democracy and the rule of law become daily fare. By developing professional identity curricula, the confluence of these circumstances provides law schools the opportunity to forge students’ “plural” identities anchored in a commitment to multiracial democracy and a transformative vision of law. Hence our project.
Given this project and our other individual professional commitments, we are gravely concerned by the Council’s willingness to repeal Standard 206. In our view, the proposal betrays the shared values of the profession and the legal academy and is unsupported, misguided, and unnecessary.
The proposal to repeal Standard 206 betrays the shared values of the profession and the legal academy. Recognizing its own role in creating an exclusionary profession and legal academy,[3] the American Bar Association (and, we add, the Association of American Law Schools and its constituent schools) have long undertaken remedial efforts, among them Standard 206. Such efforts are necessary because, as the Council itself noted:
The Council understands that law schools are the gateway to the legal profession and that the profession administers our system of justice. It also understands that the legitimacy of our justice system is advanced by the inclusion of individuals from all backgrounds represented in our democracy. Diversity in the profession also helps ensure broader access to justice, and promoting diversity and inclusion in the profession upholds the fundamental principles of equality and justice.[4]
This understanding is reflected in the Council’s core principles and values, which recognize that “prepar[ing] … students … for effective, ethical, and responsible participation as members of the legal profession” requires the “participation in the profession by students, graduates, and teachers from all backgrounds and ideologies.”[5] Among other requirements, law schools must “provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism.”[6] The Council’s core principles and values further state that the ABA Standards “should support law professors and the next generation of lawyers and law students in improving the administration of justice.”[7]
These commitments to diversify the legal profession and improve the administration of justice are critical to our democracy and the rule of law. In short, the Council is an important guardian of democracy and the rule of law and fulfills that role on behalf of legal educators and law schools across the country. As such, it is not similar to other professional accreditors that have revoked or indefinitely suspended similar standards, which the Council has used to justify action on Standard 206.[8] To the contrary, it has a unique, proactive duty as a guarantor of our system of justice. As the accrediting body for law schools, the Council has never abdicated its important accreditation responsibility to bodies less focused on the broader interests and needs of the legal profession. Rather than abdicating its duties in this critical work, the Council—along with and on behalf of all of us—must continue to work toward fulfilling the promise of diversifying law schools and making them more inclusive. Thus, the need for Standard 206 remains.
The proposal to repeal Standard 206 is unnecessary and capitulates to the current Administration’s racist, authoritarian agenda. Courts have repeatedly rejected the Administration’s attacks on “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in higher education, forcing the Administration to step back from such efforts.[9] It therefore is shocking that the Council would choose to advance an effort that the courts have rejected. Moreover, to the extent the Council is relying on Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (“SFFA”), the Supreme Court there only rejected specific methods of race-conscious admissions and, indeed, reaffirmed the “constitutionally valid objective of diversity” in education.[10] Standard 206 does not mandate
race-based admissions but requires only a “commitment to diversity” through concrete action.[11] The proposal to repeal Standard 206 is therefore not only unnecessary but, worse, advances an illegitimate agenda that, at its core, threatens the values of a healthy and vibrant democracy. We hasten to note that when the Council sought comment on Standard 206 after SFFA, it asserted that it was “not abandoning the values of diversity and inclusion.”[12]
The proposal to repeal Standard 206 is unsupported, indefensible, misguided, and undermines democracy and the rule of law. Finally, we find it objectionable that the Council seems willing to sacrifice Standard 206 in the vain hope of appeasing the Trump Administration and perhaps staving off the greater threat of losing its accreditation status with the Department of Education.[13] Appeasement is a losing strategy against authoritarianism. Democracy and the rule of law can die incrementally when institutions charged with their defense comply by degree, as here.[14] The Council must not capitulate to incremental appeasement and, instead, must remain steadfast in reaffirming and defending the critical principles embodied in Standard 206.
We strive to fulfill the highest calling of our profession. We believe firmly that doing so requires a professional identity rooted in the values to which our nation has long aspired but so rarely achieved. That work begins with law schools and legal educators, all of whom look to the Council to guide and support those efforts. For the reasons stated above, we urge the Council to reject the proposed repeal and instead strengthen Standard 206.
Respectfully submitted,
Eduardo R.C. Capulong
Professor of Law and Director of Experiential Learning University of Hawaii William S. Richardson School of Law*
Kendall L. Kerew
Clinical Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Experiential Education Georgia State College of Law*
Andrew King-Ries
Professor of Law and Associate Dean of Professionalism and Community Engagement Alexander Blewett III School of Law at the University of Montana*
Monte Mills
Charles I. Stone Professor of Law and Director, Native American Law Center University of Washington School of Law*
*Title and affiliation are for identification purposes. All views expressed in this letter are our own.
- See UH Law School Receives $250,000 Grant for Professional Identity Development (April 11,2025); “Pluralizing” Legal Professional Identity: Democracy, Equity, Justice, and the Legal Curriculum(September 25, 2025). ↑
- See, e.g., Sudha Setty, Too Soon for Predictions, but the 2026 Admission Cycle is Starting Strong (October 13, 2025); James Leipold, Incoming Class of 2023 Is the Most Diverse Ever, But More Work Remains (December 15, 2023); Susan Krinsky, First Impressions of the Incoming Class of 2024: Largest Class Since 2021, Top-Line Diversity Is Level, More Research Needed and the Work Continues (December 16, 2024). ↑
- See Jerold S. Auberbach, Unequal Justice: Lawyers & Social Change in Modern America (1976). ↑
- David A. Brennen & Jennifer Rosato Perea, Memorandum Re Matters for Notice and Comment: Standard 206(Nov. 18, 2024). ↑
- ABA Legal Education & Admissions to the Bar, Core Principles & Values of Law School Accreditation at 1-2 (August 2025). ↑
- ABA Standard 303(c). ↑
- Supra note 5 at 2. ↑
- These comments were made in Open Session when the Council moved to repeal and was mentioned in the November 2025 Memo from the Standards Committee recommending repeal. See https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/2025/nov ember/2025-nov-standard-206-repeal.pdf. ↑
- See Eric Jotkoff, Department of Education Backs Down on Unlawful Directive Targeting Educational Equity (February 18, 2026). But see Executive Order “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors” (March 26, 2026). ↑
- 600 U.S. 181 (2023).↑
- 11 ABA Standard 206.↑
- See supra note 4. ↑
- See Laura Spitalniak, ABA faces DOJ wrath over law school diversity requirements (March 10, 2025). ↑
- See Kim Lane Scheppele, Autocratic Legalism, 85 U. CHICAGO L. REV. 585 (2018). ↑