The Evolving Landscape of Law School Admissions: An Ethical Reevaluation

Recently, an American Bar Association (ABA) panel has proposed a significant change to the traditional admission requirements for law schools, including the possibility of eliminating the LSAT requirement for applicants. This proposal raises several complex ethical and practical questions. In this article, I will explore five major issues that need to be considered, focusing on barriers to law school, the creation of new classes of privilege, and the ethical implications of these changes.

Barriers to Law School

Traditionally, there have been barriers for some individuals to gain admission to law school, and this has been a matter of concern for over half a century. While progress has been made to address these barriers, there is a risk of overcorrecting if we swing the pendulum too far the other way. Modern law school admissions processes should be inclusive and holistic, with a focus on individual drive, opportunity, and readiness for law school, not just standardized tests like the LSAT. The LSAT is just one tool to measure readiness, and in the context of diversity, it should be used as part of a broader, more dynamic assessment framework.

Creating New Classes of the Privileged

The proposal to eliminate the LSAT also raises concerns about creating new classes of privilege within the law school system. Some admissions policies, designed to address past discrimination, often result in new forms of privilege that disadvantage other groups. This has been evident in the affirmative action policies of the past, where one group's preferential treatment has led to reverse discrimination against another group. It is crucial to ensure that any changes to admissions policies do not disproportionately benefit one group at the expense of another.

The concept of “white privilege” is often misused as a racial divider rather than a valid ethical or political measure. Reverse discrimination happens when we create rules that limit access to certain groups but inadvertently favor others. In the context of law school admissions, it is essential to provide equal opportunities to all applicants, allowing them to compete on the same level. We should not limit admission criteria based on assumptions or anecdotal evidence but instead rely on empirical data to support any claims of inequity.

Ethical and Regulatory Considerations

The ABA, while not a recognized government entity, wields significant influence over law school admissions and the broader legal profession. As such, it has the power to regulate the legal profession in ways that can have far-reaching ethical implications. This raises the question of whether the ABA should retain its current role in regulating the legal profession or if it should be moved back to state-level control.

The current admissions standards in law schools can be seen as deontological, with a heavy focus on strict adherence to rules. This approach can lead to disparities in admission numbers, particularly for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Instead of rigidly applying admission criteria, a more consequentialist approach should be considered, where equal opportunities are provided to all candidates, and success is measured by their ultimate achievements in the field. Success in law school and the profession should be independent of admission standards and should be based on the ability to succeed and achieve excellence in practice.

Expanding Admission and Education

To achieve true diversity and ensure equal opportunities, law schools should expand their admission policies and increase class sizes to accommodate a larger number of applicants. Admission should be based on a combination of factors, including the candidate's drive, opportunity, readiness, and potential for success. We should eliminate artificial restrictions on the chance to succeed and focus on empowering all applicants, regardless of their background.

Enabling everyone to try and then evaluate their success based on their ultimate achievements is a more holistic and equitable approach. Even if a significant number of students may leave law school, it is important to give them the opportunity to try. If someone fails the bar exam, they should be given the chance to retake it and improve their performance. The true test of success is not the admission process but the ability to practice law effectively and ethically.

Conclusion

The debate over the role of standardized tests like the LSAT in law school admissions highlights the complexities of achieving true diversity and equality. While the proposed changes may seem progressive, they must be implemented in a way that does not create new forms of privilege or disadvantage. By focusing on individual drive, opportunity, and readiness, and by providing equal opportunities to all applicants, we can foster a more inclusive and diverse legal profession. The ultimate goal should be to ensure that the legal system reflects the diversity of our society and provides equal opportunities for all who aspire to become lawyers.