- Under DoJ gun, LSAT agrees to end flagging of test scores taken with disabled accommodation, cough up more than $7 million [Justice press release, Caron/TaxProf roundup coverage]
- “Things law school trustees probably should not do: subpoena their own school’s students for criticizing them” [@petersterne; Danielle Tcholakian, DNAInfo]
- Should law students graduate without studying the First Amendment? And other thoughts from Justice Scalia’s William & Mary commencement speech [text via Will Baude]
- “Rank ordering the likelihood of law school reforms” [Prof. Bainbridge] ABA moves forward with law school accreditation changes; tenure, among other institutions, likely to remain sacrosanct [Caron/TaxProf, Fortune]
- Paul Horwitz reviews James R. Hackney Jr. book on contemporary legal academy [Journal of Legal Education via Prawfs]
- Alex Acosta dean case: should conservative legal academics steer clear of Florida? [Bainbridge]
- Orin Kerr vs. Erwin Chemerinsky and Carrie Menkel-Meadow on curricular reform [Volokh Conspiracy]
Filed under: bar associations, disability & schools, law schools, testing
2 Comments
The most telling line of the Justice Dept press release:
“Without the necessary accommodations, test takers with disabilities are denied an equal opportunity to demonstrate their aptitude and achievement level.”
No, if you give someone extra time then it isn’t an equal opportunity anymore. And do you really want a lawyer who take two hours to read a brief that the others can read in ten minutes?
“Do you really want…?” is not the right question. The aim of DoJ and the activists with which it is allied is precisely to foil the downstream preferences of the law or medical schools considering making an offer of admission, or the subsequent law firms or hospitals considering making a job offer. They will be sent only sanitized test scores and transcripts precisely so as to conceal information they have good reason to consider material.