American law schools — especially the most prominent among them — have been falling rapidly into “wokeness,” with attacks on people who disagree with leftist ideas becoming increasingly common. That’s bad anywhere, but particularly so in schools that are supposed to train students to deal with arguments. In court, an attorney is expected to respond rationally to opposing positions, not say, “His position is racist, so I demand summary judgement in my favor!”
At long last, the American Bar Association seems poised to do something to stop this lunacy. In today’s Martin Center article, Mark Pulliam discusses an ABA initiative to shore up freedom of speech and respect for opponents.
He writes:
To its credit, the American Bar Association, responsible for accrediting the nation’s law schools for purposes of eligibility for federal student loans and graduates’ bar admission, is considering a proposal (sponsored by the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar) that would require law schools to adopt policies protecting the free-speech rights of faculty, staff, and students. It would also prohibit disruptive conduct interfering with free expression (such as the “heckler’s veto”) and provide for due process for those accused of violating the policy.
If adopted (it’s still only a proposal to be voted on next month), this would compel law schools to rein in their zealous social-justice-warrior types because loss of ABA accreditation would be a serious blow.
Pulliam continues:
Never has regulatory intervention — and “intervention” is the apt term — in legal education been needed more urgently. I have been critical of the ABA in the past, but proposed Standard 208 represents long-overdue “adult supervision” of a law-school culture that increasingly resembles a junior-high food fight, albeit one with Orwellian overtones.
Well said.