Showing posts with label Eugene Volokh. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eugene Volokh. Show all posts

Thursday, July 1, 2021

Law profs fault vague, empty ABA 'diversity' proposal

Gan Khoon Lay CC BY 3.0
The accreditation of law schools by the American Bar Association would be a joke if it were more funny than costly.

Having been a leader in the push to attain accreditation for the law school where I work presently, I know firsthand the enormous and unnecessary costs that the ABA visits upon law schools—and therefore law students—that strive to become part of the club.  Some years ago, I was invited to write up my observations on the accreditation farce for a book.  I declined to do so because my school did not yet have full accreditation, and I feared putting it in jeopardy.  I'm not sure I made the right choice.  Now that I'm in the club (again), I admit, I feel unmotivated to expose its flaws.

There is a place for academic accreditation.  A functional accreditation system would protect academic freedom from administrative overreach or political intervention; would protect resources vital to students and faculty, such as law library budgets and staffing, from bean counters' incessant cuts; and would protect students in their investment against fraud and unduly burdensome student debt.  Every now and then, the ABA stumbles into accomplishing one of these objectives, usually after having failed to do so resulted in public embarrassment.  Meanwhile, outside watchdogs with no real power at all—the AAUP, FIRE, media such as Inside Higher Ed and US News, and faculty blogs such as TaxProf and ATL—accomplish much more every day to keep law schools honest, and they don't pass fat tabs on to law students or lawyers.

When I have troubled to raise a red flag or blow the whistle on bad behavior in law schools to the ABA, my concerns have been consistently, efficiently, and quietly buried by accreditation review committees.  I've come to understand that the number-one benefit of club membership is that a school's soiled skivvies will be laundered in secrecy.  ABA accreditation is not about transparency and not about truth.

So what is ABA accreditation about?  Appearances.  Accreditation is about looking woke.  And to that end, the ABA wields its accreditation power as a virtue-signaling manifesto.  Too many times, for too many years, I have seen law schools pursue feel-good social agendas, with ABA imprimatur, and it's students, ironically often students of color, who pay the price for the reality that the agenda is mere facade.

So it is with the ABA's latest inclination to prescribe "diversity."  I put that term in quote marks, because the ABA is not worried about all kinds of law school diversity, but only the kinds that resonate in the correct political frequencies; the kind of diversity that prompted a colleague of mine in a recent hiring meeting to say "we don't need more white," drawing applause.

(I do believe we would benefit from greater racial diversity on our faculty, and in legal academics generally.  Where I differ with my colleagues is over the propriety of overt race discrimination as the means to the end.  Dare I suggest it, one might actually have to invest money in creating opportunity.  The problem is akin to employers complaining they're unable to hire while being unwilling to offer attractive terms of employment.)

With Professors Rick Sander and Eugene Volokh at UCLA, and Professor Rob Steinbuch at UALR, I offered comment (TaxProf Blog, Volokh Conspiracy) this week on a recently ABA-proposed "diversity" standard, Standard 206, in parts.  All of the views above are mine, and not necessarily those of my co-authors.  Those views explain my trepidation about the proposed standard, justifying my participation in the comment below, which is ours together.

June 27, 2021

Via email to Mr. Fernando Mariduena

Dear Chief Justice Bales and Mr. Adams:

Last month, the ABA’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar approved for Notice and Comment proposed revisions to Standards 205, 206, 303, 507, and 508 of the ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools. The revisions to Rule 206 would significantly alter the responsibilities of law schools to achieve “diverse” and “equitable” environments. In response to your solicitation of comments, we offer the following:

(1) The proposed Rule 206(b) provides that “a law school shall take effective actions that, in their totality, demonstrate progress in diversifying the student body, faculty, and staff….”   There appear to be no exceptions, indicating that the language requires that all law schools must demonstrate progress. “Diversifying,” to judge from the annotations to the rule, means “adding people of color” (not “minorities,” which the annotations say is an outdated term). Yet “progress” is nowhere defined; indeed, there is not even a hint of what it means to fully satisfy this standard. According to the ABA’s own website, which reports the proportion of first-year law students in 2020-21 who are “minorities” (we assume this means “people of color”), the makeup of the 197 ABA-accredited law schools ranges from 8% “minority” to 100% “minority.”(FN1) According to the ABA data, minorities make up more than 90% of students at four schools, and more than half the students at 24 schools. Presumably, these schools are also mandated to achieve greater diversity; does that mean they must find ways to enroll more whites? If there is an implicit goal, is it the same nationwide, or does it depend on the demographics of a school’s region? Any useful effort to create usable guidance to law schools must, at a minimum, address these and other similar questions. The standard, as written, is so vague that it will give enormous discretion to ABA accreditation committees to exert arbitrary control over important and sensitive policy issues.

The proposal fails to account for the fact that among the current population of law school applicants, there are very large disparities in credentials that correlate with race. For example, among all students taking the LSAT, there is about a 1.0 standard deviation gap between the mean score of white takers and the mean score of black takers. The white-black gap in college grades is smaller but still very large (about 0.8 standard deviations).(FN2: The Law School Admissions Council releases annual data on the scores and GPAs of law school applicants in its National Statistical Report series.) It is difficult to argue that either of these credentials is discriminatory, since they are predictive of law school grades and subsequent bar performance, and their predictions are as valid for blacks as for whites. Indeed, to the extent there is a debate over the relationship between black credentials and black law school performance, it is whether LSAT scores and college grades overpredict law school performance.(FN3:  LSAT and UGPA “overpredict” GPA performance of a particular group in law school, that implies that students in that group will obtain lower grades than their credentials predict, and thus that the credential is biased in their favor. The LSAC itself, in its validity studies, finds “very slight” overprediction of black GPAs; Sander finds that when adjustment is made for school quality and within-school grade inflation, LSAT and GPA are unbiased predictors of law school GPA across racial lines; Alexia Marks and Scott Moss, in a study of GPAs at two schools, find LSAT and UGPA modestly overpredictive of black GPAs. See Anthony & Liu; Sander; Marks & Moss.) The large credential gap means, of course, that law schools have resorted to large racial preferences as the main method of increasing the numbers of enrolled blacks, Hispanics, and American Indians. The best data we have on this come from admission records released in 2007-08 by 41 public law schools in the U.S., which in the aggregate show that roughly 60% of blacks entering these law schools had academic credentials that were at least a standard deviation below those of their median classmate.(FN4) (This was also true for about 30% of Hispanic first-years, compared to about 6% of Asian-American students and 4% of whites.) A major failing of the proposed Rule, therefore, is that since it provides no guidance on how the existing pool of law school applicants can be meaningfully expanded, it necessarily implies that greater “diversity” should be achieved by using even more aggressive racial preferences.

(2) The proposed Interpretation 206-2 asserts that “the enrollment of a diverse student body has been proven to improve the quality of the educational environment for all students” but cites no evidence to this effect. So far as we are aware, no one has even attempted to study, in a scientifically credible way, the effect of diversity on legal education quality or outcomes. Careful studies have been done at the undergraduate level, but these studies come to very different conclusions. Importantly, the leading studies that find positive educational benefits from diversity (notably, those by Patricia Gurin and her colleagues(FN5: See, e.g., Gurin et al.; Gurin et al.)) do not take into account how those benefits are affected when schools use large racial preferences to achieve diversity (as nearly all law schools do). The research that does take large preferences into account (such as the work of Arcidiacono et al. at Duke,(FN6: See, e.g., Arcidiacono et al.) or the work of Carrell et al. at the Air Force Academy(FN7)) finds that large preferences can directly undermine the goals of a diverse environment and increase racial segregation and isolation. There is also, of course, the very real danger that if race correlates very highly with class performance—an outcome difficult if not impossible to avoid if large racial preferences are used—then the single-minded pursuit of diversity will create, rather than erode, racial stereotypes.

(3) The proposed Rule and accompanying interpretations conspicuously ignore the likelihood of “mismatch”—that is, the potential harmful effects of very large preferences upon the intended beneficiaries (in terms of law school grades, bar passage, and long-term outcomes). In 2007, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a lengthy report on law school mismatch, finding grave cause for concern and urging further investigation,(FN8) but the ABA has never taken up this question. This inaction persists despite the fact that the Journal of Legal Education recently accepted for publication a new empirical study showing compelling evidence that law school mismatch has large, negative effects upon bar passage.(FN9) There is heavy attrition of students admitted with large preferences, first in terms of graduation from law school and second in terms of passing state bar exams, and this is at least arguably the major reason the legal profession remains as predominantly white as it still is. The committee’s proposal not only ignores this fundamental problem, but creates pressure on schools to worsen it.

(4) Finally, the proposed Interpretation 206-1 states that “The requirement of a constitutional provision or statute that purports to prohibit consideration of race, color, ethnicity … in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a school’s non-compliance with Standard 206 …. [Such a school must] demonstrate the effective actions and progress required by Standard 206 by means other than those prohibited by the applicable constitutional or statutory provisions.” Setting aside the problem noted earlier—that “effective actions and progress” are nowhere defined—the predominant method that schools have used to increase the number of enrolling members of underrepresented racial groups is the use of ever-larger admissions preferences. Case law in the states that have prohibited the use of race- based preferences makes clear—not surprisingly—that such preferences do, in fact, violate the law. In the absence of any explanation or documentation of other, proven methods by which schools can make “progress,” the proposed standard places these schools in an impossible bind—violate the law and the civil rights of applicants, or risk losing accreditation. Putting schools in this impossible bind would be an abuse of the ABA’s professional responsibility as an accreditor.

We welcome the opportunity to share with the Committee and the ABA any of the research discussed in this letter, and to otherwise contribute to a constructive revision of the proposed rules.

Sincerely, ....

I ask of this comment letter only that it bid salutation to my many criticisms of the ABA over the years when joining them in the ABA's dustbin.

[UPDATE, Aug. 18.]  The ABA approved the proposed standards.  See yesterday's TaxProf Blog.

Monday, April 27, 2020

Product liability, negligence claims underlie Supreme Court cases with jurisdiction, First Amendment issues

Two cases filed in the U.S. Supreme Court arise out of tort claims, if presenting more immediate questions in other doctrinal veins.  Recent media coverage of each offers worthwhile observations.

U.S. Supreme Court denies government bid to argue for corporate jurisdictional defense in product liability case

Historic Ford Motor Assembly Plant in California
(Almonroth CC BY-SA 3.0)
Ford Motor Company v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court, No. 19-368 (SCOTUSblog), No. 19-368, might be one for the civil procedure casebooks.  It is consolidated with a similar case, Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer, No. 19-369 (SCOTUSblog).  In Montana Eighth, a Montana driver died after tire treads separated on her Ford Explorer on a state highway.  In Bandemer, the plaintiff-passenger suffered severe brain injury after the airbag failed to deploy in a Ford Crown Victoria that rear-ended a snowplow in Minnesota.  Plaintiffs in both cases sued Ford upon theories including strict product liability and negligence.  Ford sells cars in both Montana and Minnesota, but not these cars; they wound their way to those states through changes in ownership.  Based on that attenuation, Ford contested personal jurisdiction and lost in both state supreme courts.

U.S. S.G. Noel Francisco
Darcy Covert and A.J. Wang for Slate highlighted an interesting development behind the scenes in the Ford cases: The Supreme Court denied a motion by the U.S. Solicitor General to participate in oral argument.  As Covert and Wang observed, the Supreme Court "[f]or roughly the last decade, ... [has] permitted the solicitor general to weigh in on any case he wants."  That permissiveness exaggerated a trend in the waning decades of the 20th century in which the SG intervened in cases with diminishingly credible legitimate federal interest.  The SG's cause for intervention has become more about politics, or even, my words, the realpolitik of corporatocracy, than about interests of federalism or constitutional law.  Witness the Ford cases, in which the SG hardly articulates any credible rationale to thinly veil the executive's alignment with your friendly neighborhood (non-governmental) U.S. Chamber of Commerce to make it that much harder for a consumer plaintiff to sue a manufacturer.

Slate's headline described the Supreme Court's denial as "a small step in the direction of judicial independence."  Let's hope so.

Black Lives Matter petitions U.S. Supreme Court after Fifth Circuit 'bobbled' freedom-of-assembly defense in negligence case

DeRay Mckesson (Jay Godwin, LBJ Library)
Mckesson v. Doe, No. 19-1108 (SCOTUSblog), not yet granted cert., is likely to turn up in a lot of books—it's already rounded the circuit in legal op-eds—because of its rich social dimensions.  But the core legal problem is pretty straightforward in its articulation.  Doe was a police officer severely injured when a Black Lives Matter protest, blocking a Baton Rouge highway, turned violent.  Doe sued DeRay Mckesson for negligence as a protest organizer, alleging that Mckesson reasonably should have foreseen injury-causing violence.  (Mckesson played a collateral role in another First Amendment case, Johnson v. Twitter (Complaint; read more at The Hill), which I talked about at Amity Dubai last summer on the subject of social media-related liability.)

At first blush, the case looks something like one of the entrants in the unsettled First Amendment genre of negligent "inducement to violence."  In one of the earliest such cases in the modern civil rights era, Weirum v. RKO General, Inc., 15 Cal. 3d 41 (1975), a radio DJ induced first arrival at a giveaway point, resulting in a fatal car accident.  For the California Supreme Court, famous Justice Stanley Mosk summarily rejected the DJ's First Amendment defense: "The First Amendment does not sanction the infliction of physical injury merely because achieved by word, rather than act."

Justice Mosk might have been right on those facts, but his unwillingness to recognize a slippery slope had to have been willful ignorance.  The more familiar "clear and present danger" (or "incitement to imminent lawless action") doctrine and the much debated "true threat" doctrine in First Amendment law more plainly demonstrate the same problem.  It's not at all clear that the RKO DJ "inflict[ed]" physical injury, and doesn't the sticks-and-stones maxim posit that that's impossible?  Cf. James 3:6-8.  I've seen many scholars try to tackle the Weirum problem; they've all concluded either that the case was rightly decided but at the extreme of a spectrum, or that it was wrongly decided, despite the DJ's socially objectionable conduct.

Black Lives Matter protest in Baton Rouge, La.
(Antrell Williams CC BY-ND 2.0)
The First Amendment speech-and-assembly activity in Mckesson is more attenuated causally from physical injury than the radio broadcast in Weirum.  More time, space, and independent decision-makers separated defendant-organizer Mckesson from violence against plaintiff-Officer Doe than separated the RKO DJ from his driving listeners.  And in a way that is difficult and hazardous to quantify, if nonetheless important, much greater political value—at the core of First Amendment protection—attaches to the organization of a protest against the government than to a commercial radio promotion.

Mckesson must be free of negligence liability, even if the right path to get there in First Amendment jurisprudence remains to be worked out.  Professor Eugene Volokh in Reason suggested a smart fix in the firefighter rule.  That rule's nuanced underpinning in public policy invites the First Amendment to put a thumb on the scale, and such clever fixes—including legal causation, for foreseeability, itself—have helped to resolved negligent-speech injury cases before—in a Fifth Circuit case in which now-Chief Justice Roberts represented the media defendant.

The view I want to highlight here, though, is that of University of Baltimore Law Professor Garrett Epps in The Atlantic, who attacked the problem more directly through free-assembly precedent grounded firmly in civil rights-era protection of boycotts.  To Epps's view, the "rogue" Fifth Circuit "has had four chances to apply a foundational First Amendment precedent, and has bobbled it each time."  I hope the Supreme Court sees it the same way.

Ford Motor Co. will be scheduled for oral argument in fall 2020.  McKesson is pending cert. consideration this spring; if the petition is granted, the case also will be scheduled for argument in the 2020-21 term.

Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Brief argues public interest in social science research, FOI, while managing privacy risk

Representing the National Association of Scholars, UCLA Professor Eugene Volokh, UALR Professor Robert Steinbuch, and I filed an amicus brief in a California appellate case in which we argue the public interest in social science research, especially freedom of information in the area of legal education and admission to the bar, while managing risks to personal privacy.  Below is the introduction.  A longer excerpt appears here on TaxProf Blog, along with a link to the full brief in PDF.  My thanks to two formidable writing partners and a dedicated client.

The public good often depends on social science research that employs personal data. Volumes of scientific breakthroughs based on data accumulated through access to public information demonstrate the importance and feasibility of enabling research in the public interest while still respecting data privacy. For decades, reliable and routine technical methods have ensured protection for personal privacy by de-identifying personal data.
Social science research into legal education and admission to the bar is presently a matter of urgent public interest and importance, requiring solid empirical analysis of anonymized personal data that government authorities possess. Social science research of the very kind proposed by Appellants Sander and The First Amendment Coalition represents standard, indeed commonplace, research practice furthering the public interest, while employing established methodologies that minimize the risk to privacy.