Introduction

…As the Council seeks to take on the continuing challenges of the moment, SALT cautions the Council against any action that could be perceived as abandoning its responsibilities to serve the public good or weakening the Council’s broader obligations to shepherd the legal profession’s mission, a mission contingent upon the health and vibrancy of the law school environment. The law school is the place where all future lawyers begin to form their professional identities and learn professional responsibility rules of conduct for the first time. The ABA Standards are critical towards ensuring quality and competency is maintained at every law school... Precisely because of the broad, deep, and long-lasting impacts that can flow from each Council member’s discretionary vote, SALT urges each Council member individually, as well as the Council as a collective body, to reject the proposal to repeal Standard 206.

SALT’s Executive Summary of Why Council Members Should Reject Repeal of 206

1. Repeal Is Not Legally Necessary. Repeal of 206 is not required by any state or federal law.
2. Repeal Is Not Aligned with National Professional Responsibility Standards. Repealing 206 undermines the Council as a national accreditor. Repeal is in direct conflict with the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, a uniformly accepted articulation of the obligations of all lawyers containing fundamental principles of ethics and inclusion engrained in the ethos of the legal profession. Repeal of 206 would send the wrong message to current and prospective lawyers regarding their obligations of professional responsibility. SALT suggests revised language to 206 in the discussion below.
3. Repeal is Non-responsive to the Needs of Students in the Law School Environment. Legal education is not solely the transmission of doctrinal knowledge; it is also the development of students’ professional identity, judgment, and competence. Standard 206 is not simply an expression of institutional values, but a component of educational effectiveness and professional formation.
4. Repeal is An Unsuitable Exercise of Discretion by the Council. Repeal of 206 inappropriately deploys the Council’s discretion. The Council should not enable state efforts to use state law as a self-help mechanism to nullify accreditation standards. Instead, the Council should exercise its discretion to ensure that the accreditation standards reflect the commitments of the legal profession rather than the preferences of any specific state or group of states.
5. Repeal Weakens the Structure of the ABA Standards and Specifically the Framework of “Chapter 2 Organization and Administration.” Standard 206 is not an isolated or random standard. Standard 206 is part of a framework of standards entitled “Chapter 2 Organization and Administration” which outlines the minimum competencies for the learning environment to train all lawyers. Standard 206 articulates an important core value of inclusion that is also an essential tenet of the legal profession. It should be viewed in context – within a suite of related standards. Repeal of 206 would remove the transparent, systematic, and reasonable monitoring of compliance with these minimum competencies in the law school environment and simultaneously leave students, staff, and faculty to pursue mechanisms of individual litigation to ensure compliance with basic legal norms in the learning environment and workplace.
6. ABA Standards “Chapter 2 Organization and Administration” Mirror Important Legal Norms and Protections within Federal Law. Relevant federal laws that would remain binding upon law schools, including Title VI (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance and ensures equal access to services, benefits and opportunities in areas like education), Title VII (prohibiting employment discrimination on race, color, religion, and sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin)), and the Americans with Disabilities Act. Standard 206 is integral to these foundational protections that support non-discrimination and inclusion in the law school environment.
7. Repeal as a Strategy is Untenable and Threatens the Legitimacy of National Accreditation Itself. National accreditation is essential to the health of the American justice system and the integrity of a legal profession with nationally portable JD degrees. If the Council continues to rely on the justification that “enacted and proposed laws at the state level” make it impossible to have meaningful minimum national standards for the legal profession regarding lawful subject matters, national accreditation has failed, and states can dictate to the Council what it may or may not regulate. The Council should resist pressures to repeal as that would ultimately undermine the Council’s legitimacy and efficacy.

Discussion

***

(Parts I and III omitted in their entirety for length)

II. Repeal Is Not Aligned with National Professional Responsibility Standards.

Standard 206 is an essential component of the minimum competency standards of accreditation and specifically aligns with The Model Rules of Professional Conduct (Model Rules). The Model Rules have been adopted in nearly every state (with variations) and represent a cohesive system of disciplinary rules taught in law schools across the United States.

A. Lawyers Have Professional Obligations Consistent with Inclusion and Non-Discrimination

For example, the Preamble to the Model Rules in paragraph six explains every lawyer’s proactive duty beyond clients and courts to support the administration of justice as a public citizen:

As a public citizen, a lawyer should seek improvement of the law, access to the legal system, the administration of justice and the quality of service rendered by the legal profession. As a member of a learned profession, a lawyer should cultivate knowledge of the law beyond its use for clients, employ that knowledge in reform of the law and work to strengthen legal education. In addition, a lawyer should further the public's understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system because legal institutions in a constitutional democracy depend on popular participation and support to maintain their authority. A lawyer should be mindful of deficiencies in the administration of justice and of the fact that the poor, and sometimes persons who are not poor, cannot afford adequate legal assistance. Therefore, all lawyers should devote professional time and resources and use civic influence to ensure equal access to our system of justice for all those who because of economic or social barriers cannot afford or secure adequate legal counsel. A lawyer should aid the legal profession in pursuing these objectives and should help the bar regulate itself in the public interest. (emphasis added)

This mandate, in line with Standard 206, requires lawyers to be cognizant of and make efforts to ensure equal access to the law against economic and social barriers.

Reinforcing this alignment, Model Rule 8.4 provides:

Maintaining The Integrity of The Profession

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules. (emphasis added)

The comments to Rule 8.4 clarify that “Lawyers may engage in conduct undertaken to promote diversity and inclusion without violating this Rule by, for example, implementing initiatives aimed at recruiting, hiring, retaining and advancing diverse employees or sponsoring diverse law student organizations.”^[1] (emphasis added)

Principles of inclusion and non-discrimination are essential to maintain the integrity of the profession. This overlap of the tenets of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and Standard 206 both illuminates and amplifies the necessity that accreditation standards which regulate and monitor the sufficiency of the training environment for lawyers must also assess inclusive and nondiscriminatory conduct, as well as foster a culture of justice, access, and non-discrimination. In this way, Standard 206 reinforces other essential standards for ensuring that law graduates are prepared for practice, in a manner similar to Standard 205 (non-discrimination and equal opportunity) and Standard 303(b)(3)-(c) (professional identity formation and cross-cultural competency).

B. Revision – Not Repeal – Aligns with Existing Legal Commitments and Professional Obligations of Lawyers

***

C. Belonging is an Important Component of Inclusion and Is Meaningful to All Students in the Learning Environment

A substantial body of empirical research demonstrates that a strong sense of belonging is closely linked to student success, engagement, and professional development.^[2] These findings are particularly relevant in legal education, where classroom participation, mentoring, peer interaction, and professional identity formation are central to student learning. Data from sources such as the Law School Survey of Student Engagement (LSSSE) consistently show that students who experience supportive and inclusive learning environments are more likely to participate actively, persist in their studies, and achieve stronger educational outcomes.^[3] These findings are directly relevant to accreditation standards. Legal education is not solely the transmission of doctrinal knowledge; it is also the development of professional identity, judgment, and competence. Environments that foster belonging enhance students’ ability to engage fully in the learning process, collaborate with peers, and develop the skills necessary for effective legal practice.

Standard 206 supports these outcomes by encouraging institutions to cultivate environments in which all students can participate meaningfully in legal education.^[4] Framed in this way, this Standard is not simply an expression of institutional values, but a component of educational effectiveness and professional formation. By promoting conditions that support learning, participation, and professional identity development, Standard 206 contributes directly to the preparation of competent, ethical lawyers…

***

IV. Chapter 2 is a Framework of Minimum Competency in the Administration of Law Schools and Consistent with Federal Law Norms

Standard 206 is not a random or an isolated standard. Standard 206 is part of a set of standards entitled “Chapter 2 Organization and Administration.” Therein Chapter 2 provides law schools with rules that articulate the minimum standards of competency necessary for an appropriate learning environment and mandate the structural and operational norms of every law school including: 1) shared governance of the program of legal education by the expertise of the law faculty and law dean (Standard 201), sufficiency of current and anticipated financial resources (Standard 202), full-time leadership with relevant experience, authority, and support (Standard 203), regular self-evaluation of the quality of the law school’s program of legal

education addressing its strengths, weaknesses, and continuing efforts to improve the educational quality of its program consistent with its stated mission and objectives (Standard 204), policies and practices of non-discrimination (Standard 205), a commitment to a culture of inclusion (Standard 206), policies and practice of reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities (Standard 207), and written policies and practices supporting academic freedom and freedom of expression (Standard 208). These 8 standards work together and should not be evaluated in isolation. Each of these 8 standards support the organization and administrative structure of an educational environment to train professionals as client advocates, officers of the law, and public citizens with a responsibility for justice.

Another reason that Standard 206 cannot be analyzed in isolation without the full context of its companion standards in “Chapter 2 Organization and Administration” is because the Standards in Chapter 2 also mirror important principles and obligations contained in multiple laws, such as Title VI (prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance and ensures equal access to services, benefits and opportunities in areas like education),^[5] Title VII (prohibiting employment discrimination on race, color, religion, sex, (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, gender identity, and national origin)),^[6] and the Americans with Disabilities Act.^18[7] These laws require more than simple non-discrimination; they require objective practices and resource allocations to ensure compliance with requirements of accessible, equitable, and inclusive learning environments.

Standard 206 is appropriate, helpful, and should not be repealed. SALT also recognizes and acknowledges the necessity of Standards 205 (Non-Discrimination and Equality of Opportunity), 207 (Reasonable Accommodation for Qualified Individuals with Disabilities), and 208 (Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression). These Standards in Chapter 2 also mirror those of other accreditors, and the Council would be a significant outlier if it repealed these norms of inclusion and anti-discrimination from its requirements.

Conclusion

SALT urges the Council to retain and not repeal Standard 206 because Standard 206 supports core principles of inclusion and non-discrimination that are essential to the health of the academic learning environment as well as required for all lawyers in their practice of law and as officers of the law and public citizens with a special responsibility for justice. Standard 206 further reinforces other accreditation and legal provisions that facilitate not only an inclusive and discrimination-free environment in law schools but also support law graduates to be competent to receive a nationally portable JD degree that permits them to sit for the bar exam and practice widely across American jurisdictions.

Repeal of Standard 206 would remove an explicit benchmark within the accreditation standards for assessing inclusion and equal access in legal education. Without such a standard, law schools will be discouraged from pursuing the necessary work to ensure the law school environment encompasses these broader and real commitments of the legal profession. Further, without a regulatory mechanism of a Standard, systematic monitoring and transparency will also be lost.

Students, faculty and staff should have either assurances that their law school is complying with these norms or visibility of the school’s noncompliance. The discretionary choice of the Council to repeal Standard 206 instead will weaken the role of accreditation: failing to ensure a learning environment aligned with the profession’s commitments to fairness and access to justice.

Although significant progress has been made, the structure of legal education and the composition of the profession continue to reflect disparities in access and opportunity. In this context, efforts to promote inclusion within legal education are not new or extraneous policy choices, but rather part of an ongoing effort to support access to the profession and to ensure that legal education prepares lawyers to serve an increasingly diverse society. Standard 206 operates

within this framework by supporting conditions that promote equal access to legal education and the development of a competent and inclusive profession.

1. Even jurisdictions that have questioned the Council's role as a national accreditor, such as Florida, maintain Model Rule 8.4(g) in robust form: "A lawyer shall not … engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic." Florida Rule of Professional Conduct 4-8.4(d). ↑
2. ¹⁰ A large body of research in the field of procedural justice shows that, when an institution treats people according to these qualities, people more likely will see the institution’s authorities as respecting them as a valued member of the community, and to trust the institution. While much of this research pertains to government authorities, it also applies to leadership in private institutions. See generally, e.g., TOM R. TYLER, WHY PEOPLE OBEY THE LAW (2006). See also Tracey Meares & Tom Tyler, Justice Sotomayor and the Jurisprudence of Procedural Justice, 123 YALE L.J. F. 525, 527 (2014), https://www.yalelawjournal.org/pdf/8.TylerMeares_FINAL_Updated_5.20.14_iugaebgj.pdf (“[P]eople understand the way in which they are treated by legal authorities to provide them with information about how that authority views them and the group or groups to which they belong. In other words, the way people interpret the fairness of procedures has a substantial relational component.”); id. at 535 (“The quality of the treatment that people receive . . . sends messages that people use to interpret their degree of inclusion within society and their social status/standing.”); Tom R. Tyler & E. Allan Lind, A Relational Model of Authority in Groups, 25 ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL SOC. PSYCHOL. 115 (1992). ↑
3. See, e.g., Kelly Allen, et al., What Schools Need to Know About Fostering School Belonging: A Meta-Analysis, 30 EDUC. PSYCH. REV. 1, 2-3 (2018); Brief for American Psychological Association et al., as Amici Curiae Supporting Respondents, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (No. 20-1199), 2022 WL 3108813 at*10-14 (summarizing research on the importance of belonging, and how diversity on campus relates to belonging). ↑
4. See Jonathan Feingold, Hidden in Plain Sight: A More Compelling Case for Diversity, 2019 Utah L. Rev. 59 (2019); Meera Deo, Empirically Derived Compelling State Interests in Affirmative Action Jurisprudence, 65HASTINGS L. J. 661, 690-99 (2014) (discussing the compelling interest in avoiding racial isolation); Vinay Harpalani, “Safe Spaces” and the Educational Benefits of Diversity, 13 DUKE J. OF CONST. L. & PUB. POL’Y 117-166 (2017) (discussing how conversations about race benefit all students). ↑
5. Title VI (42 U.S.C. § 2000d). ↑
6. Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.). ↑
7. ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.). ↑