2005 The Whitest Law School Report
and Other Law School Rankings Related
to Racial/Ethnic Diversity in Law School
Professor Vernellia Randall

A History of MInorities in Legal Education
Chapter 2: L.S.A.T., Rankings, Law School Admissions and Traditionally Discriminated Against Racial Groups

What's New!

(Based on 2004 ABA/LSAC Information)




Admission Factors
LSAC Policies
LSAC Practicies
Not that Good
LSAC ScoreBands
Ltr frm LSAC
Ltr frm USNEWS
Education Attainment
Selected Readings
Use of Quota
Minoritoes in Legal Ed
Racism ABA
Bar Study
Racism Stupid!
Black Matriculants







 William C. Kidder

William C. Kidder, The Struggle for Access from Sweatt to Grutter: a History of African American, Latino, And American Indian Law School Admissions, 1950-2000, 19 Harvard BlackLetter Law Journal 1-41 (Spring, 2003)(190 Footnotes)


In Grutter v. Bollinger, a challenge to race-conscious affirmative action at the University of Michigan Law School, the Sixth Circuit recently ruled that achieving diversity to enhance education is a compelling governmental interest and that the Michigan Law School's program is narrowly tailored to meet that goal. With the Supreme Court granting review of Grutter to consider the constitutionality of the Michigan Law School's affirmative action policies, it is a particularly opportune time to look back at law school admissions over the last half-century. Because the Court treats Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as coextensive with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and since every law school accredited by the American Bar Association (ABA) is a recipient of federal funding, the Court's ruling in Grutter will have profound implications n the ability of private and public law schools and other institutions of higher learning to maintain diverse student bodies.

In this Article, using a wide array of published and unpublished data, I attempt to document and analyze law school admissions opportunities for African American, Latino, and American Indian students over the past fifty years. In particular, I review the meager representation of students of color in law schools in the pre-affirmative action era. I also analyze the early development of affirmative action in the late 1960s, particularly at so-called "elite" law schools, and I consider the increase in competitiveness of law school admissions during this same period--a phenomenon that led schools to place increasingly greater reliance on the Law School Admission Test (LSAT). In chronicling the national enrollment and admissions decision patterns since the 1970s, the Article also focuses partly on the impact of the Supreme Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

The historical and contemporary law school admissions and enrollment data, I argue, will support four claims. First, before law schools adopted affirmative action programs in the late 1960s, law schools and the legal profession were overwhelmingly de facto segregated. Second, even with the tool of affirmative action, White students have consistently had higher admissions rates than students of color since the mid-1970s. Third, a comprehensive review of the consequences of ending affirmative action at public law schools in California, Texas, and Washington reveal that there is little evidence that race-neutral alternatives to affirmative action are viable in legal education. When affirmative action was prohibited at law schools that are similar to the University of Michigan, the number of underrepresented minorities sank to levels not seen since the late 960s. Finally, recent national admissions data are consistent with the conclusion that student activism can have a positive influence on admissions rates. Conversely, affirmative action bans and threats of litigation are associated with a widening of the gap in admissions rates in recent years between Whites and students of color nationwide.

Legal Education Before Affirmative Action ] The Rise of Affirmative Action ] The Rise of the LSAT ] Stalled Progress ] The Fall of Affirmative Action ] Contemporary Admission Environment ]
The Misuse of the LSAT
It's Racism Stupid!
Black Matriculants Down - Fall  2005
Letter from USNEWS
LSAT Article.pdf
LSAC Cautionary Policies re Use of LSAT
LSAC Good Practices
Law School Admission Factors
LSAT Magnifies Differences in Educational Attainment
A History of MInorities in Legal Education
Defending the Use of Quota's in Law Schools
Emphasis on LSAT Scores Hurts Black Applicants
InEfficient Racism of the ABA
Selected Readings on LSAT and Minority Admission
LSAC Bar Passage Study


Total Visits Since Aug. 31, 2005:
Hit Counter



2005 TWLS
01 Introduction
02 Discrimination
03 Top Ten
04 National
05 Regional
06 State
07 Isolation
08 Schools








Same Level:

The Misuse of the LSAT ] It's Racism Stupid! ] Black Matriculants Down - Fall  2005 ] Letter from USNEWS ] LSAT Article.pdf ] LSAC Cautionary Policies re Use of LSAT ] LSAC Good Practices ] CAUTIONARYPolicies2003.pdf ] Law School Admission Factors ] LSAT Magnifies Differences in Educational Attainment ] [ A History of MInorities in Legal Education ] Defending the Use of Quota's in Law Schools ] Emphasis on LSAT Scores Hurts Black Applicants ] InEfficient Racism of the ABA ] Selected Readings on LSAT and Minority Admission ] LSAC Bar Passage Study ] Scorebands.pdf ] StatementLSATBrochure.pdf ]


Level Below: Legal Education Before Affirmative Action ] The Rise of Affirmative Action ] The Rise of the LSAT ] Stalled Progress ] The Fall of Affirmative Action ] Contemporary Admission Environment ]


Level Above: Home ]


Always Under Construction!

Always Under Construction!

Last Date Website Updated:
Friday, February 24, 2006

Copyright @ 2005.
Vernellia Randall.  All Rights Reserved


Contact Information
Professor Vernellia R. Randall
The University of Dayton School of Law
300 College Park
Dayton, OH 45469-2772



In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, some material on this website is provided for comment, background information, research and/or educational purposes only, without permission from the copyright owner(s), under the "fair use" provisions of the federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed for other purposes without permission of the copyright owner(s).