I have an essay on RealClearEducation about the latest contretemps at Yale Law School. Here is the gist:
Recent events at Yale Law School reveal that it’s all too easy for administrators to condemn a student for perceived racist statements, even in highly ambiguous circumstances – but much harder to undo the implications for admission to the bar. To put it plainly, a law school’s “discrimination and harassment coordinators” cannot denounce a student for racism and then withhold that information from its bar certifications. If the condemnation is warranted, it must be reported; if it is not warranted, it should be retracted. To do otherwise would violate the administrators’ own obligations under the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The offending message was in fact an invitation to a Constitution Day celebration jointly sponsored by the Native American Law Students Association and the Federalist Society, to be held at the jokingly described “world-renowned NALSA Trap House,” with a menu that included “Popeye’s chicken,” apple pie, cocktails, and soft drinks.
Many states require law schools to report much more than “formal disciplinary action” in their certifications for the bar exam. New York, where many Yale graduates apply for bar admission, asks not only about formal discipline but also about whether the applicant was “charged with any misconduct.” Moreover, New York also asks: “Is there any other discreditable information in the personnel or other records of the school regarding the applicant’s conduct or activities or bearing upon applicant’s character not otherwise set forth in this form certificate?”
The New York and California bar certifications may be overly intrusive, requesting more information than is needed or justified. There could be many objections to the disclosure of charged-but-unadjudicated misconduct, not to mention vague questions about “fitness.” But law schools do not get to silently set their own policies when responding to such official inquiries. Under Rule 8.1(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer may not “knowingly fail to respond to a lawful demand for information from an admissions or disciplinary authority.”
The humane and responsible step would be to retract the condemnation – just as publicly as it was first issued.
The essay is not paywalled. You can read it here.