SALT Requests SRC Include 211 and 212 in Review

SALT’s LGBT Committee noticed that for some reason Standards 211 and 212 were not included in the schedule for comprehensive review of all of the Standards and Interpretations for Approval of Law Schools by the Standards Review Committee.  The language of those Standards is oddly out of sync with current ABA anti-discrimination language.  There is no mention of “gender identity” in Standard 211 (a), (b), (c), and (d), and no mention of “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in Standard 212 (a) and (b).

To refresh your recollection of the ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools, Standard 211 focuses on admissions and hiring practices in law schools to create an atmosphere of non-discrimination and equality of opportunity.  Although “sexual orientation” is included as a protected category, “gender identity” is not. 

When Standard 212 was last amended, it triggered a controversial response from the Bush administration Department of Education and several ideological conservatives on the U.S. Commission for Civil Rights. 

Standard 212 (a) states: “Consistent with sound legal education policy and the Standards, a law school shall demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to providing full opportunities for the study of law and entry into the profession by members of underrepresented groups, particularly racial and ethnic minorities, and a commitment to having a student body that id diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.” 

Note that there is no mention of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Standard 212 (b) states: “Consistent with sound educational policy and the Standards, a law school shall demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to having a faculty and staff that are diverse with respect to gender, race and ethnicity.”

Note that there is no mention of sexual orientation or gender identity.

In urging the Standards Review Committee to include Standard 211 and 212 in its schedule of comprehensive review, SALT stated in a June 3, 2011 letter to Dean Donald Polden, Chair of the SRC:  “SALT believes revisions to these standards are necessary to bring them into conformity with ABA goals and to ensure that ABA-approved law schools are providing equal opportunity in a way that will achieve meaningful diversity.  The current standards are antiquated and inconsistent with the ABA’s and the legal academy’s stated commitment to equality and diversity.”

Download a copy of SALT’s June 3, 2011 letter.