The Council of the American Bar Association Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar formally repealed its diversity standard on Sept. 8, noting the move was necessary to preserve the accreditation of law schools amid scrutiny from the U.S. Department of Education and some states. The Council is separate and independent from the ABA and operates on a nonprofit basis.
The decision to repeal Standard 206, commonly known as the diversity standard, is effective immediately. The standard had been suspended and not enforced since 2024.
“The Council believes that national accreditation of law schools is in the best interests of law students, the legal profession and the public, and we can best serve in this role with continued recognition by state supreme courts and the Department of Education,” said Melissa Hart, chair of the Accreditation Council and a retired Colorado Supreme Court justice. “Repealing Standard 206 was necessary to preserve recognition by a growing number of state courts as well as the department.”
Earlier this year, the Department of Education issued letters to other accreditors stating that in order to remain recognized by the Department of Education, the accreditor would be required to repeal, not just suspend, DEI-related standards.
In August, the Department of Education recommended stripping the Council of its federal recognition, raising concerns about whether the Council is sufficiently independent from the broader ABA and whether it complies with federal accreditation requirements.
The matter is scheduled to go before the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity on Sept. 23 and 24. The Council remains a federally recognized accreditor while renewal is considered.
The Accreditation Council has served as the nation’s sole accreditor of J.D. programs since 1952. National accreditation provides a standard for legal education and allows law graduates to seek licensure in any state or U.S. territory, regardless of the location of their Council-accredited law school.
For Hart, the vote on Standard 206 and the recommendation from the Department of Education cannot be separated from the difficulty of setting national standards for states that are increasingly divided over what accreditation can require of law schools, especially when it comes to diversity, equity and inclusion.
“It’s really, really important to recognize that it is actually the state supreme courts who regulate the legal profession, not the Department of Education,” Hart said. “State supreme courts have been saying, totally independent of any Department of Education issue, that diversity, equity and inclusion standards are making it impossible to have a nationwide, unified standard.”
Federal Recognition on the Line
As for the challenge from the Department of Education, Hart said, “The recognition process is less about arguments and more about facts. We have met all of the statutory requirements.”
She said the Council has spent the past year working with the department to ensure it complies with the requirements of the Higher Education Act and federal regulations.
The department’s concern about the autonomy of the Accreditation Council may reveal a misunderstanding about the Council’s organizational structure, said Hart. Although the Council is part of the ABA’s Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, it operates independently when making accreditation decisions. “The Accreditation Council is focused on neutral accreditation of law schools,” she said. “And the ABA has a variety of different goals that are entirely separate.”
What Happens to Law Schools?
Accreditation decisions about individual law schools are made by the Council based on applicable law and are not subject to ABA policy positions or procedures, Hart continued.
The Council currently accredits nearly 200 J.D. programs nationwide. Accreditation can affect graduates’ eligibility to sit for the bar in many jurisdictions and, for some schools, impact access to federal student aid.
Hart worries about what would happen if the national system were to unravel. Currently, “if you get a law degree in New Mexico, you can go practice in Maine, and they will recognize your degree from the University of New Mexico,” she said.
Shifting away from one accreditation standard in favor of, possibly, state standards could also make legal education more expensive as law schools aim to comply.
Hart pointed to the Council’s role in maintaining academic standards. She said studies show graduates of Council-accredited schools tend to perform better on the bar exam, which she attributes in part to the rigor of the accreditation process.
A Colorado Perspective
Hart brings a unique perspective to the debate. She was a professor at the University of Colorado Law School before serving on the Colorado Supreme Court. She retired from the state’s highest court in January. “I bring the perspective of someone who’s been both a law professor and a supreme court justice, and therefore a regulator,” Hart said. “I sat in both chairs.”
Her experience has given her an appreciation for how heavily state courts rely on the national accreditation system. For decades, she said, state supreme court justices could largely assume that accredited law schools were meeting appropriate standards.
“Because it worked so well, people weren’t asking, ‘What if this isn’t working?’” Hart said. “And now, obviously, people are asking questions.”