Two years ago, I wrote the Argus in accepting noted professor Dr. Pedro Noguera’s challenge in resolving the impasse for law school admissions (“I accept Noguera’s challenge,” Feb. 10, 2006, Volume CXLI, Number 26), through my proposal that was sought out by then-U.S. Attorney General, The Honorable John Ashcroft, in January of 2005, in response to the 2003 US Supreme Court decision Grutter vs. Bollinger (The Michigan Law School Admission Case).
The following is a status report for all; but first, some historical and background data.
Thirty years ago, after the Bakke decision was announced by Justice Powell and re-affirmed by Justice O’Connor within the Grutter Decision, by which diversity was the true issue at stake, no one disagreed with the Court’s opinion that all races and cultures must have a voice within our government, structured through written laws, ensuring a spoken voice within our democracy. The true challenge lay in how to get there.
So, in 1979, the law school admissions program under the control of Education Testing Service (ETS) would first undergo a divorce, which in turn would permit the building of infrastructure for admissions into law school.
In re-affirming the business model necessary to ensure both academics and financials of the graduate programs (primarily law, medicine and business), 15 regents from various law schools came to Bucks County, Penn.-home to the Law School Admissions Services (LSAS/LSAC) organization-in 1980 to tackle the real issue of representation.
At stake was the critical funding for the graduate loan programs. Our government was NOT in support of loan extensions until the primarily undergraduate loan was first paid in full. We (the old folks) had to demonstrate the entitlement through sound business fundamentals: “supply and demand” by which the taxpayers would continue to benefit as a result of their financial support of these loan programs.
We had in place nearly all of the components necessary to ensure a complete supply and demand process for both the American Bar Association (ABA) and non-ABA schools. However, we had neither the technical nor financial avenues necessary to complete the process.
In solving any problem, one must take variables and transform them into constants. The Law Council achieved this objective in three class steps:
1). On the supply side, we first leveraged or adjusted all GPAs to a national scale for both the traditional and non-traditional colleges and universities and their course studies based on the four problem solving skill-sets that our undergraduates were to develop.
In support of the candidates’ new GPA (which was never announced to the law candidates until recent policy change), the standardized test, “the LSAT,” would then permit the benchmark of our leverage grading system.
2). On the demand side, we re-affirmed the process through the projected number of employment opportunities upon graduation from law school. We divided the opportunities into two sub classes:
a) The high dollar jobs offered by corporations, distinguished law firms, positions through clerkships, etc.
a) Community law.
3). For the process selection, we re-affirmed through earlier development of the law school application to capture specific elements that would permit us to match the projected growth within each community and the employment opportunities that would be forthcoming. This is based on the critical assumption that, upon graduation, the young law graduate who did not receive an offer of employment after their one year required apprenticeship would continue to develop their law career within the community: thus establishing the benefit for the taxpayers who were supporting the various graduate loan programs. This also establishes a voice within each diverse community, as guaranteed within our constitution, through structured laws: laws we utilize in governing ourselves.
But in review, we had missed a step. In short, we failed to establish the candidate pool first, for the legal profession by which admissions into law school was required.
At that time, we had neither the tools nor the technology that would have permitted a resolution to the problem. The only real option left in establishing our law school candidates for admissions was to continue to permit the law selection committees the flexibility in establishing our nation’s candidate pool. However, in doing so, the process came to be known as affirmative action.
And when based on the multitude of opportunities present within the legal profession, coupled with any candidate’s ability to complete the law school curriculum, the “entanglement” for the selection process developed, resulting in the impasse that we have today.
But amid the release of the Grutter decision came a sunset date of 25 years for affirmative action. The U.S. Attorney General was now forced in seeking an answer to this complex problem. Hundreds of proposals were submitted by various individuals, groups and organizations. Overwhelmed by the sheer volume, a criterion was established that any proposal submitted would not be brought forth for implementation unless a consequence to the states was identified.
With the release of my proposal in 2005, the U.S. Attorney General (Ashcroft) and the Texas State Attorney General (The Honorable Gregg Abbott) coordinated their research through the Office of Jim Pitts (a country lawyer and District 10 member of the House of Representatives for the State of Texas). In reviewing their findings, it was the only proposal that identified that consequence: hence the involvement of the Department of Justice through the office of the U.S. Attorney General.
After 18 months of scanning the various educational newsprints, the articles in support of the proposal surfaced in December of 2006, when the announcement by the Department of Education stated that the “OLD DIVERSITY STANDARD” from 26 years ago (1980) was to be re-introduced at the 2007 ABA annual meeting. With the remaining issues and steps now addressed and in place, the impasse for law school admissions is all but resolved.
Today, any individual denied access to law school can now challenge their denial based on the Old Diversity Standard that now rests within the recorded documents of the DOJ/Division of Civil Rights.
And with the tools and technology now available, it will take less than 15 minutes to prove discrimination, not only between the various races but also within each race and culture. Add an additional three minutes to the process and that challenger will now be able to identify corruption by which law seats were awarded based on dollar donations by either private or public law schools, rather than fulfilling the objective of representation through diversity.
In writing the final chapter of this story, the hundreds of individuals associated with this process for the past 30-plus years, can now rest assured and in peace knowing that their brilliance through common sense genius has resolved this seemingly unsolvable problem.
With Noguera’s Challenge now within its final stage of resolve, what role of honor will the Wesleyan University student body now partake, in addressing the questions and answers through debate on the topic of university admissions and the candidate selection process for law school? The blank blueprints for equality now lie at your steps.
Leave a Reply