SALT's mission is to:

SALT Comments on Pending SRC Draft Standards

On Friday, April 13, 2012, SALT submitted two comments to the ABA Standards Review Committee for consideration at its upcoming April 27-28, 2012 Meeting. 

The first comment to Dean Jeffrey E. Lewis, Chair of the Standards Review Committee, regards Standards 211 & 212, which are the core of the anti-discrimination protections.  As currently written the prohibitions against discrimination are not parallel and do not cover the full gamut of descriptions of LGBT persons: sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression.  Download a copy of the April 13, 2012 letter to read and distribute to your colleagues and dean. 

The second comment to Dean Lewis involves the proposed Standard 302, dealing with outcome measures as an assessment tool for instruction.  SALT has consistently urged the Standards Review Committee to adopt a Standard that encourages law schools to experiment more widely with outcome measures assessments.  Download a copy of the April 13, 2012 letter to read and distribute to your colleagues and dean.  Here is also a copy of the Shultz-Zedeck skills discussed in the comment.

The Standards Review Committee met again on July 9-10, 2011, to discuss the on-going comprehensive review of Standards and Interpretations governing law schools.  In preparation for this meeting, SALT submitted a further document opposing any change in the institutional bar passage rate, Interpretation 301-6. Read the July 7, 2011 SALT Statement.

After criticism of the process being used by the Standards Review Committee, on March 15th the SRC posted its subcommittee reports and proposed drafts well in advance of the April 2, 2011 “open forum”  meeting in Chicago at the Hotel 71 from 9:00-12:00 pm . 

The “hot” issues that were discussed at the April 2 meeting include: Standards affecting retention of the LSAT as an admissions test, student learning outcomes, bar passage, and academic freedom and tenure.

READ SALT and CLEA's Joint Summary of the April 2 SRC open forum.

Read Carol Chomsky's summary of the other issues raised at the SRC Meeting: LSAT, bar passage, outcome measures, facilities, and the faculty's role in governance. 

Below are links to the reports submitted by subcommittees of the SRC, which were on the agenda for the April 2 “open forum:

LSAT as admissions test (had been previously posted)

Student outcome measures

Bar passage

Academic freedom and tenure

SALT’s Issues in Legal Education Committee, under the commanding leadership of Andi Curcio, got to work immediately on reviewing the proposed changes, drafting a critique of each, finessing the arguments, and finalizing them.  They were emailed to the ABA on March 28th and are posted for your review below.

SALT’s Statement in Support of Eliminating the Requirement of an Admissions Test

SALT’s Statement on Statement on Outcome Measures

SALT’s Statement on Bar Passage Interpretation 301-6

SALT’s Statement on Tenure/Security of Position

Further History of Review:

November 4, 2010 Update:  In a letter dated November 3, 2010, addressed to Judge Christine Durham, Chair of the ABA Council, and to Hulett “Bucky” Askew, Consultant on Legal Education, SALT contested the procedures being used by the Standards Review Committee during its comprehensive review of the Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. 

“We believe that, with rare exceptions, the process that is being employed in the current comprehensive review and revision of the accreditation standards does not afford sufficient opportunity for member of the legal academy to provide input into the deliberations of the SRC, and that the practices of the Committee violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the Department of Education requirement that an accrediting agency “ensure that its program of review… involves all of the agency’s various relevant constituencies in the review and affords them a meaningful opportunity to provide input into the review,”  34 C.F.R. ¶601.21(b)(4).”

“We believe that given the extent of the changes contemplated and the controversy that surrounds some of the draft proposals, a much broader discussion and involvement of the various constituencies is needed.  As our comments indicate, the process being followed by the SRC affords insufficient opportunity for meaningful input even by the affiliates who have been invited to attend the meetings, much less by the members of the wider community of legal educators.  Such participation is critical, especially in the review and possible revision of the provisions dealing with security of position and academic freedom.  The current proposals for revision of these and others standards adversely affect the ability of faculty to help shape the future of legal education through shared governance and the available of sufficient numbers of full-time faculty to provide responsible legal education and guidance to law students.  A revision of the standards for accreditation that is as radical as the de-regulatory model currently contemplated should be subject to a full and inclusive deliberative process, not only because the regulations require meaningful participation, but because the expertise available in the broader academic community will produce a better set of standards.”

Read the entire letter.  Watch for a talking points memo to keep you updated on the comprehensive review of Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. 

On November 4, 2010, CLEA also distributed a letter contesting the procedures.  Read the CLEA letter. 

October 2010 Update on Standards Review Committee Proposed Changes and Procedures for Review of Standard 405

In anticipation of the November 7-8, 2010 meeting of the Standards Review Committee (SRC) in St. Louis, two important documents were submitted to the SRC, which will help inform the discussion about the future of tenure and security of position as a requirement for law schools receiving ABA accreditation. 

October 25, 2010: Professor Richard Neumann's History of Standard 405

October 25, 2010: CLEA Comments on Tenure and Security of Position

SALT is preparing an informational sheet, video, and suggestions for action which will be distributed within the next two weeks. 

SALT submitted “Society of American Law Teachers Statement on Tenure and Security of Position,” dated July 19, 2010, to the Standards Review Committee (SRC), which met on July 24-25 in Chicago to continue its review of the Standards and Interpretations for Approval of Law Schools.  The Statement was drafted by the SALT Issues in Legal Education Committee, incorporating comments and edits from members of the SALT board of governors. 

Although a proposed revised Standard 405 was not circulated by the SRC on July 19th, SALT decided to submit this Statement to inform SRC members as they begin discussion of these issues, originally raised by the Report of the Special Committee on Security of Position.   

On July 20, 2010, the SRC released "Security of Position, Academic Freedom and Attract and Retain Faculty," dated July 15, 2010, "...draft standards and interpretations concerning law schools’ ability to attract and retain qualified faculties and their obligation to protect the academic freedom of their faculty members.  The draft report is being submitted by the subcommittee as a discussion draft and not as recommendations for action by the full committee."  Read the SRC draft standards and interpretations. 

On July 22, 2010, CLEA through its President Robert R. Kuehn, issued a letter to Standard Review Committee's Chair, Donald Polden, and Vice Chair, Margaret Martin Barry, criticizing the process and content of the withheld document, especially as it appears to mischaracterize the recommendations of the SRC subcommittee.  Read CLEA's letter. 
 

SALT's letter states, in part: “Tenure has long been understood as providing the necessary underpinning for the absolutely essential guarantee of academic freedom to those who shape and deliver legal education.  Requiring only that a school have a policy regarding academic freedom is insufficient.  The security that comes with tenure is the only way to ensure that faculty will remain free to teach, research, participate in governance decisions, and speak on matters of public concern without fear of reprisal.   Changing the accreditation standards to weaken the requirements regarding tenure would have enormous and unfortunate implications for the quality of legal education.”

“Tenure is not simply a term and condition of employment, as some have argued.  It is, rather, the bedrock on which academic freedom and therefore the integrity and quality of the educational process rest.” 

Other organizations have also posted comments, which are now available on the abanet.org website:

AALS Statement

CLEA History of Standard 405c Cover Letter

CLEA History of Standard 405c

AAUP Security of Position

Gorman Security of Position

Rabban Letter of Endorsement of Gorman Letter

Statement of 12 AALS Presidents Endorsing Gorman Letter

October 13, 2010: SALT submitted comments on proposed authority to accredit foreign law schools that teach US law.  Read SALT's Comments. 

For background on this issue:

Special Committee on Foreign Law Schools Seeking Approval Under ABA Standards, July 2010

International Issues Report, July 2009