Connect with us

Commentary

Activists Criticize American Bar Association over Law School Exams

NNPA NEWSWIRE — “There’s no dignity to be found in being inadequately trained to sit for the bar exam. A mountain of debt and dim legal career prospects don’t advance the cause of social justice. The real injustice is the ABA voting against making law schools accountable for valuing black students as merely a statistic,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former professor of law at George Mason University.

Published

on

By Stacy M. Brown, NNPA Newswire Correspondent
@StacyBrownMedia

Favoring diversity over quality, the American Bar Association (ABA) recently rejected a proposal to hold law schools responsible for not preparing students for the rigors of the legal profession, according to a news release critical of the association from Project 21, a leading voice of Black conservatives.

Members of the Project 21 black leadership network condemned the decision, calling for reforms that protect students who are accepted to meet social justice goals but then effectively set up to fail.

“I’ve seen too many promising black students with great potential for other fields drop out of law school because it wasn’t the right fit,” Project 21 member Dr. Carol Swain, said in a news release.

“They weren’t happy, and they ended up in serious debt because their peers and academic advisors pressured them into pursuing a high-profile legal career,” said Swain, a retired professor of law and political science at Vanderbilt University and professor of politics and public policy at Princeton University.

“Law is not for everyone, yet law schools are often complicit in the name of diversity rather than being honest about an applicant’s potential,” Swain said.

At its Mid-year Meeting, the ABA House of Delegates – in an 88-334 vote – rejected a proposed change in its standards pertaining to the bar exam passage rates of law schools’ graduates that was submitted by its Section on Legal Education and Admissions.

The change to the ABA’s Standard 316 would tie a law schools’ accreditation to a requirement that 75 percent of its students pass the bar exam within two years of graduation, the Project 21 news release noted.

ABA officials did not immediately return requests for comments to NNPA Newswire.

Speaking out against the proposal, chairs of the ABA’s Goal III groups that exist “to eliminate bias and enhance diversity” in the legal profession – which include   the Coalition on Race and Ethnic Justice and the Council on Diversity in the Educational Pipeline – wrote in a joint letter that the proposed standard change would have “an adverse impact upon diversity within legal education, the legal profession and the entire educational pipeline.”

They also alleged the proposal “continues to threaten attempts to diversify law schools and ultimately the legal profession” by impacting historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), schools in Puerto Rico and California and those with “large populations of diverse students,” according to Project 21.

They cited data indicating that 11 of the 19 schools at risk of losing accreditation due to a 75 percent bar success requirement have “significant” (“at least 30 percent students of color”) minority student bodies – and two are classified as HBCUs.

In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Kaplan Bar Review Vice President Tammi Rice said: “Arguably one of the most important responsibilities of a law school is to help its students succeed on the bar exam. Keep in mind that all of the law schools that have recently shuttered or are on the verge of closing down have something in common: a low bar passage rate.”

Project 21, in its “Blueprint for a Better Deal for Black America,” said it recognizes a disproportionate six-year undergraduate graduation rate for black students in contrast with their white, Asian and Hispanic counterparts.

“Colleges are admitting many black students who are unprepared for rigorous college environments,” the Blueprint points out.

“At the same time, colleges are failing to provide black students with the individualized support they need to overcome the deficiencies of their K-12 educations to give them their best chance of success.”

This similarly applies to law schools that accept minority students to meet diversity goals but fail to provide them with the tools and guidance to succeed after they are enrolled, Project 21 officials said.

“The American Bar Association is doing minority students a disservice by allowing them to be promoted through an educational system that fails to prepare them for a career in law,” said Project 21 Co-Chairman Horace Cooper, a former professor of law at George Mason University.

“There’s no dignity to be found in being inadequately trained to sit for the bar exam. A mountain of debt and dim legal career prospects don’t advance the cause of social justice. The real injustice is the ABA voting against making law schools accountable for valuing black students as merely a statistic,” Cooper said.

Among its recommendations for increasing black student success in higher education, Project 21’s Blueprint calls for requiring schools to meet minimum graduation rate standards to qualify for federal financial aid, preventing federal student financial aid programs from fueling tuition inflation and providing additional infrastructure, renovation and improvement funding to HBCUs that also commit to meeting the same minimum graduation standards recommended for all colleges receiving federal financial aid.

“It is irresponsible for the American Bar Association delegates to think they are benefiting black students and the legal profession by not holding law schools accountable for graduates who cannot pass the bar exam,” Swain said.

“Schools that fail their students should find their accreditation at risk – not be propped up because they help achieve racial goals.”

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of May 21 – 27, 2025

Published

on

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Your Voice and Vote Impact the Quality of Your Health Care

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare. 

Published

on

Rhonda M. Smith.
Rhonda M. Smith.

By Rhonda M. Smith, Special to California Black Media Partners

Shortly after last year’s election, I hopped into a Lyft and struck up a conversation with the driver. As we talked, the topic inevitably turned to politics. He confidently told me that he didn’t vote — not because he supported Donald Trump, but because he didn’t like Kamala Harris’ résumé. When I asked what exactly he didn’t like, he couldn’t specifically articulate his dislike or point to anything specific. In his words, he “just didn’t like her résumé.”

That moment really hit hard for me. As a Black woman, I’ve lived through enough election cycles to recognize how often uncertainty, misinformation, or political apathy keep people from voting, especially Black voters whose voices are historically left out of the conversation and whose health, economic security, and opportunities are directly impacted by the individual elected to office, and the legislative branches and political parties that push forth their agenda.

That conversation with the Lyft driver reflects a troubling surge in fear-driven politics across our country. We’ve seen White House executive orders gut federal programs meant to help our most vulnerable populations and policies that systematically exclude or harm Black and underserved communities.

One of the most dangerous developments we’re seeing now? Deep federal cuts are being proposed to Medicaid, the life-saving health insurance program that covers nearly 80 million lower-income individuals nationwide. That is approximately 15 million Californians and about 1 million of the state’s nearly 3 million Black Californians who are at risk of losing their healthcare.

Medicaid, called Medi-Cal in California, doesn’t just cover care. It protects individuals and families from medical debt, keeps rural hospitals open, creates jobs, and helps our communities thrive. Simply put; Medicaid is a lifeline for 1 in 5 Black Americans. For many, it’s the only thing standing between them and a medical emergency they can’t afford, especially with the skyrocketing costs of health care. The proposed cuts mean up to 7.2 million Black Americans could lose their healthcare coverage, making it harder for them to receive timely, life-saving care. Cuts to Medicaid would also result in fewer prenatal visits, delayed cancer screenings, unfilled prescriptions, and closures of community clinics. When healthcare is inaccessible or unaffordable, it doesn’t just harm individuals, it weakens entire communities and widens inequities.

The reality is Black Americans already face disproportionately higher rates of poorer health outcomes. Our life expectancy is nearly five years shorter in comparison to White Americans. Black pregnant people are 3.6 times more likely to die during pregnancy or postpartum than their white counterparts.

These policies don’t happen in a vacuum. They are determined by who holds power and who shows up to vote. Showing up amplifies our voices. Taking action and exercising our right to vote is how we express our power.

I urge you to start today. Call your representatives, on both sides of the aisle, and demand they protect Medicaid (Medi-Cal), the Affordable Care Act (Covered CA), and access to food assistance programs, maternal health resources, mental health services, and protect our basic freedoms and human rights. Stay informed, talk to your neighbors and register to vote.

About the Author

Rhonda M. Smith is the Executive Director of the California Black Health Network, a statewide nonprofit dedicated to advancing health equity for all Black Californians.

Continue Reading

Activism

OPINION: Supreme Court Case Highlights Clash Between Parental Rights and Progressive Indoctrination

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes — often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity.

Published

on

Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.
Craig J. DeLuz. Courtesy of Craig J. DeLuz.

By Craig J. DeLuz, Special to California Black Media Partners

In America’s schools, the tension between parental rights and learning curricula has created a contentious battlefield.

In this debate, it is essential to recognize that parents are, first and foremost, their children’s primary educators. When they send their children to school — public or private — they do not surrender their rights or responsibilities. Yet, the education establishment has been increasingly encroaching on this vital paradigm.

A case recently argued before the Supreme Court regarding Maryland parents’ rights to opt out of lessons that infringe upon their religious beliefs epitomizes this growing conflict. This case, Mahmoud v. Taylor, is not simply about retreating from progressive educational mandates. It is fundamentally a defense of First Amendment rights, a defense of parents’ rights to be parents.

At the center of this controversy are some parents from Montgomery County in Maryland, who assert a fundamental principle: the right to shield their children from exposure to sexual content that is inappropriate for their age, while also steering their moral and ethical upbringing in alignment with their faith. The local school board decided to introduce a curriculum that includes LGBTQ+ themes, often embracing controversial discussions of human sexuality and gender identity. The parents argue that the subject matter is age-inappropriate, and the school board does not give parents the option to withdraw their children when those lessons are taught.

This case raises profound questions about the role of public education in a democratic society. In their fervent quest for inclusivity, some educators seem to have overlooked an essential truth: that the promotion of inclusivity should never infringe upon parental rights and the deeply held convictions that guide families of different faith backgrounds.

This matter goes well beyond mere exposure. It veers into indoctrination when children are repeatedly confronted with concepts that clash with their family values. 

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say: well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” noted Justice Samuel Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised a crucial point, noting that it is one thing to merely expose students to diverse ideas; it is quite another to present certain viewpoints as indisputable truths. By framing an ideology with the certainty of “this is the right view of the world,” educators risk indoctrination rather than enlightenment. This distinction is not merely academic; it speaks to the very essence of cultivating a truly informed citizenry.

Even Justice Elena Kagan expressed concern regarding the exposure of young children to certain materials in Montgomery County.

“I, too, was struck by these young kids’ picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this,” she said.

Justice John Roberts aptly questioned the practicality of expecting young children to compartmentalize their beliefs in the classroom.

“It is unreasonable to expect five-year-olds, still forming their worldviews, to reconcile lessons that conflict fundamentally with the teachings they receive at home,” he said.

As was noted in my previous commentary, “The Hidden Truth In The Battle Over Books In American Schools”, what lies at the heart of these debates is a moral disconnect between the values held by the majority of Americans and those promoted by the educational establishment. While the majority rightly argue that material containing controversial content of a sexual nature should have no place in our children’s classrooms, the education establishment continues to tout the necessity of exposing children to such content under the guise of inclusivity. This disregards the legitimate values held by the wider community.

Highlighted in this case that is before the Supreme Court is a crucial truth: parents must resolutely maintain their right to direct their children’s education, according to their values. This struggle is not simply a skirmish; it reflects a broader movement aimed at reshaping education by privileging a state-sanctioned narrative while marginalizing dissenting voices.

It is imperative that we assert, without hesitation, that parents are — and must remain — the primary educators of their children.

When parents enroll a child in a school, it should in no way be interpreted as a relinquishment of parental authority or the moral guidance essential to their upbringing. We must stand firm in defending parental rights against the encroaching ideologies of the education establishment.

About the Author

Craig J. DeLuz has almost 30 years of experience in public policy and advocacy. He has served as a member of The Robla School District Board of Trustees for over 20 years. He also currently hosts a daily news and commentary show called “The RUNDOWN.” You can follow him on X at @CraigDeLuz.

Continue Reading

Subscribe to receive news and updates from the Oakland Post

* indicates required

CHECK OUT THE LATEST ISSUE OF THE OAKLAND POST

ADVERTISEMENT

WORK FROM HOME

Home-based business with potential monthly income of $10K+ per month. A proven training system and website provided to maximize business effectiveness. Perfect job to earn side and primary income. Contact Lynne for more details: Lynne4npusa@gmail.com 800-334-0540

Facebook

Trending

Copyright ©2021 Post News Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.