Study Shows Affirmative Action Bans Negatively Impact Law Student Diversity

A recent study conducted by law professors at Yale, New York University, and Northwestern confirms what many law schools are fearing amidst last year’s Supreme Court ban on affirmative action. Such bans negatively impact the racial diversity of law student populations.

The study analyzed law school admissions data from 1980 to 2021, across 23 public law schools in 12 states with affirmative action bans. The researchers found that, on average, the bans produced a decline in diversity between 10 and 17 percent, and that “Black and Hispanic students account for nearly all this decline.” 

At highly-ranked schools, the impacts of a ban were magnified. The study found that among included schools ranked in the U.S. News’ Top 20, such as UC Berkeley, University of Michigan, UCLA, and the University of Texas, student diversity fell by between 36 to 47 percent. 

Across all law schools, not just those in states with affirmative action bans, the researchers found that minority students have been underrepresented in 80 to 90 percent of entering law school classes. While the law student population has diversified over time and underrepresentation has decreased, the proportion of minority law students still lags behind that of the population. And, based upon national population statistics, amongst minority law students, Black and Hispanic students have been consistently underrepresented, while Asian students have been overrepresented. 

There is still room for measured optimism. Last year’s entering law class was the most diverse on record. And, mid-cycle data released by LSAC showed this year’s applicant numbers were up and driven by a surge in minority applicants. Hopefully this is a precursor to another record-breaking year.

Medical and Legal Associations Express Disappointment in Supreme Court Ruling on Affirmative Action

Last week the Supreme Court ended Affirmative Action in its 6-3 ruling against UNC and Harvard. The ruling determined that the schools, which used race as a component in admissions decisions, did not adequately justify their use of race and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “Eliminating racial discrimination means eliminating all of it.”

The court left some room for nuance noting that a candidate may discuss race in terms of how it played a role in their development. “A benefit to a student who overcame racial discrimination, for example, must be tied to that student’s courage and determination,” Roberts wrote. “In other words, the student must be treated based on his or her experiences as an individual—not on the basis of race.”

Nationally, many in the medical and legal communities shared their disappointment in the decision and noted their belief that it will negatively impact diversity. Below, we’ve provided highlights of some of the statements released after the decision.

• American Medical Association (AMA): “Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court undermines decades of progress centered on the educational value of diversity, and will reverse gains made in the battle against health inequities. This ruling restricts medical schools from considering race and ethnicity among the multiple factors in admissions policies and will translate into a less diverse physician workforce. Diversity is vital to health care, and this court ruling deals a serious blow to our goal of increasing medical career opportunities for historically marginalized and minoritized people.” Full statement available here.

• Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC): “We are deeply disappointed with the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to dismantle its longstanding precedent in the 2003 case, Grutter v. Bollinger, which had recognized student body diversity as a compelling interest permitting the limited consideration of race in admissions. Today’s decision demonstrates a lack of understanding of the critical benefits of racial and ethnic diversity in educational settings and a failure to recognize the urgent need to address health inequities in our country.” Full statement available here.

• American Medical Student Association (AMSA): “In accordance with our Preamble, Purposes and Principles, AMSA remains steadfast in its unwavering commitment to advocating for racial equity in education and healthcare. As future physicians committed to justice and equality, we are profoundly outraged and decry the restriction of affirmative action. We strongly support increased representation of minority students in all levels of education, including colleges and medical schools. By fostering diversity and inclusion, institutions have the power to create more empathetic and inclusive learning environments. Moreover, it has been repeatedly evidenced that diversity within the healthcare workforce and medical education system improves healthcare outcomes.” Full statement available here.

• American Bar Association (ABA): “The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the admissions programs at Harvard University and the University of North Carolina violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The ABA has a long history of supporting affirmative action and the consideration of race as one of many factors in law school admissions. We believe it is imperative that colleges, universities and state legislatures find alternative ways to create a diverse and talented student body. Law schools are training grounds for lawyers and play an important role to ensure a diverse bench and bar, which are critical to minimizing implicit bias and inspiring greater public faith in the rule of law.” Statement available here.

• AccessLex Center for Legal Education: Executive Director, Aaron Taylor, told Reuters that the decision, "deprives schools of one of the most effective tools for fostering student diversity."

• Law School Admission Council (LSAC): President, Kellye Testy, told Reuters that the decision will negatively impact law schools’ ability to keep up diversity levels. “All of us in legal education, at bar associations, and in practice are going to have to redouble efforts to make sure the entire pre-law to practice pipeline is better,” she said.

2022 Incoming Law School Class Most Diverse in History

In 2021, the entering law school class made headlines for being the largest and most diverse to date, with almost 35 percent of students identifying as people of color. But now, although the class size has returned to “normal levels,” two-thirds of the 2022 incoming law school class identify as students of color. LSAC describes the incoming class as “by far the most racially and ethnically diverse law school class in history.” 

The LSAC 2022 entering class profile incorporates LSAC data along with the ABA’s published Standard 509 data. Below are some highlights from the profile on the makeup of the incoming class. 

• The class size totaled over 38,000, a decrease from the unusually large 2021 entering class, but on par with the class sizes seen since 2018. 

• Using demographic categories that directly compare to previous years, 36.6 percent of the incoming class identify as students of color, up about 2 percentage points from last year (34.7 percent) and up over 3 percent from 2018 (33.3 percent). 

• Using updated demographic breakouts that include a category for Middle Eastern and North African/Arab students (who historically have been incorporated into the Caucasian category), the percentage of students who identify as a person of color increases to 39 percent, an increase of 2.1 percentage points over last year. 

• Women continue to make up the majority of the incoming class (55.3 percent), while men comprising 42.5 percent of the class.

• Almost all of the incoming class, over 98 percent, took the LSAT as part of the application process. The 2022 incoming class had a higher average LSAT score, up by 0.32 points, when compared to the 2021 entering class. 

• The 2022 entering class also earned a higher median undergraduate GPA, up by 0.04 points, than the 2021 class. 

You can find LSAC’s full profile here, or access the ABA dataset here.