The misuse of the LSAT is not just an example of institutional racism, it is also an example of systemic racism because many different institutions contribute to the misuse of the LSAT. A change in any one of the institutions in the system could effect a  positive change.

For instance: U.S. News & World Report could integrate diversity as a primary part of their ranking system which would cause schools to be as concerned about diversity as they are about increasing LSAT.  U.S. News could also stop using the LSAT of the lower 25% of the class in its calculations.

Law schools (Deans and Faculty) could reject the LSAT as the primary factor and have  admissions committees do full file reviews, balancing a broad range of factors important to producing ethical, competent attorneys, including the diversity of the class.  

  University and College Leadership  could assert their commitment to diversity and social justice by enforcing their anti-discrimination policies.

The American Bar Association could refuse to accredit schools whose “presumptive deny” cut-off is inconsistent with actual or projected ability to perform, and which have the effect of discriminating. 

Similarly, the American Association of Law School (AALS) could refuse to accept as members law schools who misuse the LSAT and discriminate against minorities.

National Civil Rights organizations (i.e. NACCP Legal Defense & Educational Fund,  The Equal Justice Society, The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Asian American Legal Defense Fund, Native American Rights Fund) could investigate this practice as a potential violation of civil rights. State Civil Rights organization could investigate the practice as a violation of state anti-discrimination law.

The Law School Admission Council (LSAC) could report LSAT scores to law schools in statistical significant score bands only and not individual scores which would significantly decrease the possibility of misuse.

Until these institutions take steps to eliminate institutional racism, minority applicants who have been denied admission should ask questions:

·        What is the school’s admission policy?  

·        Does the school use an LSAT based admissions grid? 

·        Why were you denied admission including where you fell on the grid?

·        Who reviewed your filed and what factors contributed to your denial?

·        If you had special circumstances (such as  disadvantage or hardship, working during college, graduate education, first generation college, more than 10 years since college, military experience,  international experience, etc.), how did those circumstances factor into the school’s decision?

·     To what extent is the school committed to diversity? In the previous years how many of your specific minority group applied (e.g. black)? How many were ultimately denied? (Remember wait list is a denial if they never take you off the list.)

·        Ask yourself, is it possible that you may have been discriminated against? Don't assume that a low LSAT or a Low UGPA means that you are not qualified.

 There are actions you can take to make the law school in your city or state; or your alma mater accountable:

• Demand that the school has a student body that reflects, at a minimum the racial diversity of the nation, generally and the racial diversity of the region specifically.
• Form a group to monitor your local or state school; or alma mater;  
• Ally yourself with supportive members of the law school faculty; for references contact the Society of American Law Teachers.
• Protest the presumptive  practice, in  general, and  specifically any presumptive cut-off  not based on documented inability to perform well in the particular law school;
• Protest any admission practice that does not provide the same full file review to all the applicants. That review should be done by entire admission committee and not just one or two admission professionals.
• Don't accept attempts to increase the number of minority students who are coming to the particular school through the use of scholarships, etc  (increasing the yield) without changes in presumptive deny policy and practice (decreasing opportunities).
•  Ask for data including the school's LSAC First Year Correlation Studies.

W.E.B. Dubois said that “the problem of the 20th century  was the problem of the color line.”

Here at the beginning of the 21st century,  the problem of the color line continues - but now it is institutionally and structurally enforced.   In the absence of  laws, policies and practices that address  institutional racism and discrimination,  the problem of color line will continue for another hundred years.

Demand a change!