Report from the July Standards Review Committee

July 13, 2011 Update: At its meeting on July 8-9, the Standards Review Committee discussed two revised proposals for articulating law faculty status in the ABA accreditation standards.  Neither would require that law schools have tenured faculty.  Both would strengthen the provisions protecting the academic freedom and governance rights of faculty.  One proposal would mention tenure as an effective method of attracting and retaining a competent full time faculty but would not require that schools offer tenure or any particular form of security of position for faculty.  The other proposal would require sufficient security of position to ensure academic freedom and meaningful participation in governance, defined to mean that, at a minimum, faculty must have presumptively renewable long-term contracts at least five years in duration after a probationary period.   The SRC will continue to discuss these proposals and could vote to send one or both alternatives to the Council, which makes the final decision. In other action, the SRC voted to propose elimination of the requirement that law school applicants take the LSAT, discussed but deferred a decision on whether to raise the bar exam pass rate, and voted approval of the proposed standards on student learning outcomes.  Download and read a more detailed report.

Senator Grassley Asks ABA Questions on Accrediting Authority and Actions  In the wake of a June 9, 2011 article in the Chronicle of Higher Education reporting on NACIQI's criticisms of the ABA Council on Legal Education's accrediting procedures (NACIQI found the ABA Council out of compliance on 17 regulations), Senator Grassley (R-IO) sent a letter to Stephen Zack, President of the ABA, dated July 11, with a list of questions Grassley wanted answered within two weeks.  Download a copy of the July11, 2011 Grassley letter.  The gist of the concern is that millions of taxpayer dollars are being spent to guarantee defaulted student loans because too many law school graduates are burdened by debt and without employment. 

Faculty Resolutions Opposing the Elimination of Tenure and Security of Position: The following law school faculties have passed resolutions vigorously opposing the proposed changes to ABA Standards 206, 405, and 603 that would end the legal academy’s commitment to the system of tenure and security of position for law school deans, traditional faculty, clinical faculty, legal writing faculty, and librarians.

Golden Gate University School of Law was the first faculty to pass such a resolution on September 17, 2010.  University of Hawai'i passed a shorter version on December 3, 2010.  A second wave of resolutions began with Georgetown Law Center on March 2, 2011.  Faculties from Baltimore, Oregon, Touro, Suffolk, UNLV, Seattle, and Tennessee followed with resolutions passed in anticipation of the April 2, 2011 "open forum" meeting of the ABA Standards Review Committee in Chicago. 

After that meeting, a third wave of faculties passed resolutions, adding to the momentum.  Many of these faculty resolutions cite and incorporate arguments from the numerous comments filed by SALT and other organizations, individuals, and groups (including AALS, AAUP, CLEA, and LWI) in opposition to the proposed revisions.

_{1. Akron}

_{2. Albany}

_{3. American}

_{4. Baltimore: Read the Resolution}

_{5. Brooklyn Law School}

_{6. Cal Western: Read the Resolution}

_{7. Capital}

_{8. Chicago-Kent}

_{9. Cleveland Marshall}

_{10. Connecticut: Read the Resolution}

_{11. CUNY}

_{12. Denver}

_{13. Detroit Mercy}

_{14. Drake Law School}

_{15. Drexel}

_{16. Duquesne}

_{17. Florida A & M: Read the Resolution}

_{18. Florida International University: Read the Resolution}

_{19. Georgetown: Read the Resolution}

_{20. Golden Gate: Read the Resolution}

_{21. Hamline University}

_{22. Hastings}

_{23. Hawaii: Read the Resolution}

_{24. Hofstra University: Read the Resolution}

_{25. Howard}

_{26. Idaho: Read the Resolution}

_{27. Indiana, Bloomington}

_{28. Illinois}

_{29. John Marshall School of Law}

_{30. U of Louisville, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law: Read the Resolution}

_{31. Loyola  Los Angeles}

_{32. Loyola New Orleans}

_{33. Maryland}

_{34. Memphis}

_{35. Mercer: Read Dean Gary Simson's Letter}

_{36. Montana: Read the Resolution}

_{37. New Mexico}

_{38. Nova Southeastern}

_{39. Ohio State}

_{40. Oregon: Read the Resolution}

_{41. Pace}

_{42. Pacific McGeorge: Read the Resolution}

_{43. Quinnipiac}

_{44. University of Richmond Law}

_{45. Roger Williams}

_{46. Rutgers University School of Law- Camden: Read the Resolution}

_{47. Rutgers University School of Law- Newark}

_{48. University of San Francisco: Read the Resolution}

_{49. Seattle: Read the Resolution}

_{50. Seton Hall Law School: Read the Resolution}

_{51. Southern University Law Center: Read the Resolution}

_{52. Stetson}

_{53. Suffolk: Read the Resolution}

_{54. Temple: Read the Resolution}

_{55. Tennessee}

_{56. Texas Southern Thurgood Mashall}

_{57. Texas Tech}

_{58. Texas Wesleyan}

_{59. Thomas Jefferson}

_{60. Touro: Read the Resolution}

_{61. UNLV: Read the Resolution}

_{62. University of Houston Law Center}

_{63. Valparaiso: Read the Resolution}

_{64. Vermont}

_{65. Washburn University School of Law: Read the Resolution}

_{66. University of Washington School of Law: Read the Resolution}

_{67. West Virginia}

_{68. Western State University College of Law}

_{69. Widener (two campuses)}

_{70. William Mitchell}

To read SALT’s comments throughout this comprehensive review of ABA Standards for Approval of Law Schools, go to: SALT at Work: Issues in Legal Education.   To read comments submitted by SALT and others through the Status and Teaching subcommittee, click on the “Status and Teaching Subcommittee” link.

To access all of the comments filed in response to proposed changes to ABA Standards, go to the ABANET.org website and scroll down.  Comments are organized by topics, and are not particularly well-labeled, so be patient.