Analysis of American Bar Association Accreditation Practices and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

A report issued by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) scrutinizes the accreditation standards of the American Bar Association (ABA), raising significant questions regarding their alignment with legal frameworks and the principles of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The core of the debate centers on whether the ABA’s diversity and inclusion standards advance or impede the objectives of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Pacific Legal Foundation Report Findings

Allegations of Discriminatory Pressure and Conflict with SDG 10

The PLF report, based on an analysis of accreditation documents from 45 of the top 50 public law schools between 2014 and 2023, alleges that the ABA leverages its accreditation authority to compel institutions to implement policies that may conflict with non-discrimination principles, a foundational element of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

• The report contends that the ABA’s Standards 205 and 206 pressure law schools to adopt race and sex-based preferences in admissions and hiring, potentially undermining SDG Target 10.3, which calls for ensuring equal opportunity and eliminating discriminatory practices.
• According to the findings, 20 of the responding schools were criticized by the ABA for failing to meet its diversity standards, thereby risking their accreditation status.
• Specific criticisms included failing to hire a sufficient number of faculty from minority groups and having “limited DEI curriculum integration,” a practice that could otherwise be seen as aligning with SDG Target 4.7 (education for sustainable development and appreciation of cultural diversity).

Impact on Institutional Autonomy and SDG 16

The PLF report highlights the ABA’s position as the sole accreditor of juris doctorate programs, describing it as a “monopoly” that grants it “quasi-governmental” power. This structure raises concerns related to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), particularly Target 16.6, which focuses on the development of effective, accountable, and transparent institutions.

• The report cites the case of George Mason University School of Law, which allegedly faced an extensive ABA investigation that concluded only after the school lowered admissions standards for certain racial groups to meet diversity requirements.
• Another example involves the Charleston School of Law, which was reportedly denied accreditation until it appointed a diversity director to address concerns about racial diversity.

American Bar Association Response and Stated Commitment to SDGs

Denial of Unlawful Practices

The ABA has emphatically denied the report’s assertions. An ABA official stated that its accreditation process operates in compliance with all applicable laws, asserting that no institution is required to choose between accreditation standards and its legal obligations. This stance aligns with the principles of SDG 16.3 (Promote the rule of law).

Policy Review in Light of Legal Developments

The ABA has demonstrated responsiveness to the evolving legal landscape. Following the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which deemed race-based admissions unconstitutional, the ABA announced a temporary suspension of Standard 206. This review is intended to ensure its policies are consistent with legal mandates, reflecting an engagement with SDG 16.B (Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development).

Proposed Solutions and Pathways to Achieving SDG 4 and SDG 10

The report and external commentators have proposed several pathways to ensure that the pursuit of SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) is conducted through fair and non-discriminatory means.

Legislative and Regulatory Recommendations

1. Amend the Higher Education Act: The PLF report proposes a legislative solution to explicitly prohibit accreditors from mandating or investigating race or sex-based diversity standards at the schools they accredit. This action would seek to clarify the legal framework in support of SDG 10.3.
2. Introduce Accreditation Competition: A senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation suggested that the Department of Education could recognize an alternative federal law school accreditor. This would break the ABA’s perceived monopoly, fostering competition and potentially enhancing institutional accountability in line with SDG 16.6.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article focuses on higher education, specifically law schools in the United States. It discusses the accreditation process, admissions standards, and curriculum content (“limited DEI curriculum integration”), all of which are central components of quality education.
2. SDG 5: Gender Equality
   • The report mentioned in the article alleges that the American Bar Association (ABA) pressures law schools to implement “sex-based preferences in admissions and hiring.” This directly relates to the goal of ending discrimination based on sex and ensuring equal opportunities.
3. SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
   • The core issue of the article is the debate over “race…based preferences in admissions and hiring.” It discusses policies that affect different racial groups unequally, which is the central theme of SDG 10. The article highlights the conflict between diversity standards and laws prohibiting racial discrimination.
4. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
   • The article examines the role and power of the ABA as a “quasi-governmental” institution with a “monopoly” on accreditation. It questions the accountability and legality of its standards and actions. Furthermore, it discusses the U.S. Constitution, civil rights laws, a Supreme Court ruling, and proposed legislative changes (amending the Higher Education Act), all of which pertain to the rule of law and the functioning of just and effective institutions.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Under SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university. The article’s entire focus on law school admissions and the debate over preferential treatment based on race and sex directly concerns the principle of “equal access” to tertiary education.
2. Under SDG 5 (Gender Equality):
   • Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere. The article discusses “sex-based preferences,” which are a form of discrimination. The debate centers on whether these preferences are lawful or constitute unconstitutional discrimination.
3. Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
   • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of…sex, race, ethnicity… The article discusses diversity standards (ABA Standards 205 and 206) that are intended to promote inclusion but are criticized for allegedly conflicting with non-discrimination principles.
   • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices… The article directly addresses this target by highlighting a conflict between the ABA’s accreditation policies and federal/state civil rights laws and the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruling mentioned (Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard) is a direct action related to this target.
4. Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national…levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article is framed around the legality of the ABA’s standards, referencing the U.S. Constitution and a Supreme Court ruling. The debate is about upholding the rule of law in higher education accreditation.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The Pacific Legal Foundation’s report criticizes the ABA for its “monopoly power” and lack of accountability, portraying it as an institution that is not transparent or fully accountable to federal law. The proposed solutions, such as amending the Higher Education Act or recognizing another accreditor, aim to reform this institutional structure.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. For SDG 4 & 10 (Targets 4.3 & 10.3):
   • Admissions standards and racial composition of student bodies: The article implies these are key metrics. It mentions that George Mason University “lowered its admissions standards for certain racial groups” to meet ABA requirements, indicating that both the standards themselves and the resulting student demographics are used as indicators of compliance with diversity goals.
2. For SDG 5 & 10 (Targets 5.1 & 10.3):
   • Existence of race and sex-based preference policies: The central focus is on ABA Standards 205 and 206. The existence, suspension (as mentioned with Standard 206), or elimination of these policies serves as a primary indicator of whether discriminatory practices are being promoted or eliminated.
   • Proportion of faculty from minority groups: The article states that schools were criticized for “failing to hire a sufficient amount of faculty from minority groups.” This proportion is explicitly used as an indicator by the ABA to measure a school’s diversity performance.
3. For SDG 16 (Target 16.6):
   • Number of schools sanctioned for non-compliance with diversity standards: The report found that “20 of the responding schools were criticized for failing to meet the ABA’s ‘diversity standards’.” This number serves as an indicator of the ABA’s institutional pressure and enforcement actions.
   • Institutional policies and roles: The appointment of a “diversity director,” as required for the Charleston School of Law, is an indicator of institutional change mandated by the accrediting body.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: thecollegefix.com