For many minority students, legal academia and the bar exam can be isolating and is often coupled with the mental gymnastics of battling systemic inequalities, generational trauma, and the quiet yet persistent questions that linger: Will I get in to law school? How will I pay for law school? Will I feel like I belong there? Will I pass the bar exam? It is in this space where the culmination of doubt and determination breeds the need for better representation of minorities in legal academia. However, considering the current political landscape of the United States and the legal community’s shifting position on the importance of representation of minorities, marginalized individuals, and other underrepresented populations, it is crucial now more than ever to remind our legal institutions of why it became necessary for policies to be put in place to ensure these populations would be seen, heard, and valued in spaces they would not have otherwise have access to.
D**, also known as DEI, or better known as diversity, equity, and inclusion are principles that work together to foster fair, respectful, and supportive environments for individuals from all backgrounds to live, work, and exist together[1]. Diversity, equity, and inclusion gained traction in the late 80s when the civil rights movement began to push for research on how to cultivate and manage diversity in the workplace, id. This birthed affirmative action which required industries to hire diverse candidates to create opportunities for underrepresented individuals[2]. At its inception, affirmative action was a bipartisan policy enacted to mitigate the consequences of racial and systematic inequities existing in the workplace and higher education.[3] Decades later however, the social and political landscape of the United States has seemingly shifted as it relates to affirmative action. The same industries that once prided themselves on believing in the need to have a diverse and well-represented workforce have since overturned their policies that once gave marginalized populations access to careers or educational opportunities. It did not help that there were executive orders put in place by the current administration and requisite court decisions. As we have seen since then, legal academia was not left unscathed.
On May 9, 2025, the American Bar Association (ABA), publicly announced that its Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar voted to extend the suspension of Standard 206, or what would be considered its “DEI clause”. Standard 206 was first suspended in February of 2025.[4]Prior to its suspension, Standard 206 stated:
(a) Consistent with sound legal education policy and the Standards, a law school shall demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion by 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 is diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.
(b) Consistent with sound educational policy and the Standards, a law school shall demonstrate by concrete action a commitment to diversity and inclusion by having a faculty and staff that are diverse with respect to gender, race, and ethnicity.[5]
In essence, Standard 206 once required law schools to be inclusive of members of underrepresented groups even if it meant admitting students based on their race and ethnicity to ensure that students from those minority backgrounds would have access to “full educational opportunities”. This indicated that there was an understanding and agreement from the ABA and the leadership of the Department of Education that underrepresented students do not always have the privilege to access higher and quality educational opportunities due to oppression and other systemic inequities. As such, to combat these systemic inequities, or to “level the playing field”, it was once an important societal norm to include such policies to guarantee privileges to minority students who would not have otherwise been afforded them.
Additionally, the verbiage of Standard 206 provided that a “sound legal education” is one that composes of “enrollment of a diverse student body that promotes cross-cultural understanding, and helps break down racial, ethnic, and gender stereotypes, and enables students to better understand persons of different backgrounds”. This then presents more concerns of what type of legal education will minority students receive moving forward if there is no rule in place to ensure representation of their diverse cultures, experiences, and backgrounds. Moreover, this brings forth the concern of whether this will further deter minority students from wanting to even pursue a legal education.
According to the American Bar Association (ABA), from 2009-2016, the overall number of black men enrolling at accredited U.S. law schools dropped 9.4% and 4.9% for black women. [6] Further, from 2013-2016, despite being known to “graduate more black lawyers than any other law school apart from Howard University School of Law, Harvard Law School experienced a drop in black 1L enrollment from 10.4% to 5.9%, id. It is important to also note the seminal case Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina et al 600 U.S. 181 (2023)[7], where the United States Supreme Court struck down Harvard University and the University of North Carolina’s use of race as metric for admission as a violation to the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. This case created a domino effect and ended affirmative action in this manner altogether. It also further pushed the rhetoric that certain demographics do not need to be given “special treatment” simply because of their race. Although the Court mentions that an applicant may still be admitted if their experiences with racism shaped their path to college, this in my opinion, is essentially the reason race-conscious admission was enacted to begin with. Affirmative Action and race-based initiatives in hiring and admission to college were enacted due to said racist experiences and inequities. Lastly, the Court points out that there are numerous other institutions who have already stopped using race-based admissions for years, however, the Court still fails to note that these institutions then did a complete overhaul by implementing other initiatives that broke down systemic barriers that were placed in front of individuals of a certain race. As such, it is now illegal to hire, admit, or place higher value on individuals who have endured centuries worth injustices due to their race. The illegality of D** has been painted as way to level the playing field of all races, ethnicities, genders, and ability, however, very seldomly have there been other ways in which there is acknowledgement of systemic inequities posed on minorities and marginalized communities and caveat-like actions to combat them.
With the current backlash on diversity, equity, and inclusion policies in legal academia and the broader country, one can only hope that minorities and underrepresented individuals in legal academia remain dedicated to simply showing up and fostering meaningful relationships and contributions to the institutions we value. Additionally, one can only hope that underrepresented students will continue to pursue a legal education with passion, confidence, and unmitigated fervor despite the disparaging headlines.
[1] Ronnie de Souza Santos et al, From Diverse Origins to a DEI Crisis: The Pushback Against Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (2025).
[2] M. Russen and M.Dawson, Which should come first? Examining diversity, equity, and inclusion.
International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management. 25 (2023).
[3] Natasha Warikoo, The Demise of Affirmative Action in College Admissions, Annual Reviews of Sociology
[4] American Bar Association, Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education extends Standard 206 suspension to 2026, Americanbar.org, https://www.americanbar.org/news/abanews/aba-news-archives/2025/05/aba-council-extends-206-suspension/ (last visited October 3, 2025).
[5]ABA Standards and Rules. Chapter 2. Standard 206.
[6] https://clp.law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/magazine/issues/where-are-black-lawyers-today/the-education-of-black-lawyers/
[7] Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (consolidated with Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. Univ. of N.C., No. 21‑707)
Guest Blogger: Jima Fahnbulleh, Associate Director of Academic and Bar Success, Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law
