More Evidence of ABA Lies re Accreditation and "Diversity":

To hear ABA officials tell it, all the ABA's accreditation officials are looking for with regard to law school equal opportunity and diversity is a good faith effort. And the ABA, according to them, never abuses its power by threatening to deny accreditation to a law school simply because it hasn't met some arbitrary goal, much less quota.

This is widely known to be balderdash in the legal academy, but it's hard to get information on specific instances, because no one likes to admit that his school has been in trouble with the ABA. Occasionally, however, a story seeps out. Here's David Barnhizer, law professor at Cleveland State, discussing a school at which he was a dean candidate:

Two main criticisms were voiced as serious concerns by the AALS/ABA report to the extent that immediate action was needed to avoid a negative final accreditation report. One criticism was that of twenty-three faculty members, only eight were women. It was expected that something must be done immediately to fix this problem. I had several problems with this particular situation and none of them related to the issue of women law faculty. One problem was the fact that the school had added women to a previously largely male faculty at a substantial pace. Since 1983, eighteen faculty members had been hired with ten being men and eight women. While perhaps it could have been ten women and eight men, it still seemed to me the school should be commended for its commitment rather than condemned and threatened.

David Barnhizer, A Chilling of Discourse, 50 St. Louis U. L.J. 361 (2006).

Crunchy Frog:
Does Beirut Bob(tm) have any explanation for the delay?
7.20.2006 2:17pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
I note that the ABA did manage to accredit Ave Maria in the 5-year minimum time frame presumably because they knew that the institution would not hesitate to sue and politically mobilize against the ABA if it crossed the institution.

So non-cowardly institutions with lots of dough should have no problem. Of course those criteria exclude most law schools.

Beyond mandated discrimination by law schools, the ABA is open to attack for proposals for mandatory diversity training for law students and lawyers (or 'mandatory chapel' as CATO called it) and proposals to yank the licenses of conservative and libertarian lawyers who do not share left wing views on race, creed, color, sex, age, alienage, sexual or affectional preference, etc. See ABA Model Code of PR 8.4 Comment 3 and Chapter 10 - Bias In (and Out Of) the Courtroom in Problems in Legal Ethics.

Thus if I'm defending the Orthodox Church in a sex discrimination suit for refusal to ordain priestesses; and I argue that the ability to perform sacerdotal magic is a sex-linked characteristic giving rise to a BFOQ exemption to the '64 CRA; and I intoduce expert testimony (oops! what those biased terms) to establish that fact, what are my chances of keeping my license?

"I favor discrimination on the basis of race, creed, color sex, age, alienage, previous condition of servitude, recent interstate travel, health, handicap, sexual or affectional preference, marital status, Vietnam-era veteran status, economic status, political philosophy, appearance and anything else I can possibly think of."
7.20.2006 4:12pm