Dear Chair Thies and Council Members:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Council of the American Bar

Association (“ABA”) Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar’s February 26, 2026, memorandum outlining the proposed repeal of Standard 206. The signers of this letter represent the ABA’s Center for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (the “DEI Center”) and each of its constituent entities. We write to express our profound disappointment with the Council’s proposal to repeal Standard 206 and to respectfully urge its reconsideration.

The DEI Center Recognizes the Challenges Facing the Council

As an initial matter, the DEI Center acknowledges that the Council’s consideration of repealing Standard 206 was not undertaken lightly. We recognize and take seriously the significant external pressures currently confronting the Council, including challenges from the federal government and increasing scrutiny and resistance from certain state supreme courts. These developments

present real pressures, and we appreciate the difficult position in which they place the Council.

At the same time, the existence of external opposition – however formidable – should not determine the course of the Council’s commitment to its longstanding values.

Profound Disappointment with the Proposed Repeal

We were, therefore, deeply disappointed to learn of the Council’s proposal to repeal Standard 206 in its entirety. In our September 27, 2024 memorandum to the Council regarding proposed revisions to Standard 206 (attached for reference), the DEI Center expressed the view that “the Council’s conclusion that the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (SFFA) necessitates revisions to Standard 206 and its Interpretations that would remove all mention of groups under-represented in legal education” was an overreaction to the SFFA decision. Our view remains that the

proposed repeal similarly constitutes an overreaction—one that risks abandoning a foundational commitment rather than refining or defending it.

Notably, the DEI Center was encouraged by the Council’s thoughtful engagement with

stakeholder feedback during the prior revision process and by its ultimate adoption of a more

expansive and inclusive version of Standard 206. That process reflected deliberation,

responsiveness, and fidelity to the Council’s core values. The current proposal, by contrast,

represents a retreat from that progress at a moment when clarity and leadership are most needed.

Repeal Risks Undermining the Council’s Mission

The Council notes 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.” Yet, repealing Standard 206 will not resolve this issue. The challenge of applying uniform standards to law schools across the country already exists: Texas has adopted an

alternative to ABA accreditation for admission to its bar, and other states are reportedly considering similar measures. And the Council has previously navigated federal and state

legislation that made it difficult for some law schools to meet the letter of the Standards (e.g., the Solomon Amendment or state statutory limitations on affirmative action) without necessitating

the repeal of any particular standard.

A commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion has long been a cornerstone of national accreditation standards. As early as 1992, the MacCrate Report—produced by a Council Task Force—identified as a Fundamental Value that lawyers should strive to eliminate bias based on

race, religion, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, or disability. An enhanced Standard 206, like the version the Council drafted prior to February 2025, supports law schools in fulfilling this

value. That law schools committed to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion provide a higher-quality legal education than those without such a commitment is well-documented. Such a

commitment is necessary to prepare students for the practice of law in an increasingly diverse

society. The abandonment of Standard 206 is thus a significant step backward from the Council’s efforts to improve the quality of legal education nationwide.

While we recognize that the Council’s authority is necessarily independent from the ABA, we would hope that it would continue to act in accordance with its own core values. Repealing

Standard 206 would have the practical effect of allowing a small number of jurisdictions to dictate outcomes that undermine the Council’s broader mission. The Council’s accreditation standards are intended to provide national leadership and consistency. Yielding that role in

response to resistance from a limited number of actors, based on a mischaracterization or overstatement of current law—risks weakening the Council’s impact and undermining its “commitment to support and promote the rule of law.”

The reality is that the central challenge has never been presented by law schools that are already deeply committed to diversity, equity, and inclusion. Those institutions will continue this work

regardless of accreditation requirements. The concern lies with institutions that are not so

committed. If inclusion were instinctive or universally prioritized, standards such as 206 would not be necessary. Experience has shown, however, that this is not the case.

Importantly, the issue is often not one of intentional exclusion, but rather the absence of

intentional inclusion. Without a clear structural framework, efforts to promote access, equity, and belonging risk becoming inconsistent, optional, or easily deprioritized. Accreditation standards serve precisely this purpose: to establish baseline expectations and accountability where voluntary commitment alone has proven insufficient.

The Need to Preserve a Structural Framework

Standard 206 has long served as a critical structural mechanism to ensure that law schools affirmatively engage in practices that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion across expansive and intersecting categories. Repealing the Standard eliminates not only a requirement, but also a signal—one that communicates inclusive values to law schools, students, the profession, and the public.

We respectfully urge the Council to reconsider repeal and instead explore alternatives that preserve the substance and purpose of Standard 206 while addressing legal and political

concerns. Maintaining a clear, principled standard is essential to advancing both the Council’s and the ABA’s missions and to ensuring that legal education remains accessible, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of an increasingly diverse society.

We appreciate the opportunity to share our perspective and stand ready to engage further with the Council on this critical issue.

Respectfully submitted,

• Wendy C. Shiba, Chair

  Center for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Thomas Saenz, Chair

  Coalition on Racial and Ethnic Justice
• Lauren Rikleen, Vice-Chair

  Center for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Advisory Council
• Louis Lopez, Chair

  Commission on Hispanic Legal Rights and Responsibilities
• R. Sean Deskins, Chair

  Commission on Disability Rights
• Jin Hwang,

  Commission on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession
• Hon. Kristin Rosi, Chair

  Commission on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity
• Karol Corbin Walker, Chair

  Commission on Women in the Profession
• Patricia D. Lee, Chair

  Council for Diversity in the Educational Pipeline