NEWS: Brandon Gill Leads Oversight Committee Hearing On DEI In Law School Accreditation

[0:00] defending constitutional rights and exposing [0:02] institutional abuses will come to order. [0:04] Welcome everybody, thank you all for being here. [0:07] Without objection, the chair may declare recess at any time. [0:11] I now recognize myself for the purpose [0:13] of making an opening statement. [0:19] The rule of law and equal access to justice for Americans [0:22] are bedrock principles enshrined in the Constitution. [0:26] Access to our legal system and the rights and freedoms [0:28] we enjoy as Americans as a result of the rule of law, [0:32] are fundamental components of the success of our nation [0:34] as we celebrate the 250th anniversary [0:38] of the Declaration of Independence. [0:40] So it should concern all Americans [0:42] that these principles are eroded [0:44] by discriminatory DEI practices and concern them even more [0:49] that these DEI policies have been promoted by attorneys [0:52] with the legal training to know better. [0:55] The ABA as an institution plays an outsized role [0:59] in American law and the legal profession. [1:01] Ever since it was founded in 1878, [1:04] the ABA has grown to be the entity [1:06] that sets the accreditation standards [1:08] for American law schools. [1:10] Since 1952, the ABA has been recognized [1:13] by the federal government as the only law school accreditor. [1:18] Those state Supreme Courts have the power to regulate [1:21] the conduct of legal professionals within those states. [1:25] Many states also recognize the ABA [1:27] as the accreditor for their law schools. [1:29] Furthermore, the ABA evaluates judicial nominees, [1:32] promulgates model rules of professional conduct [1:35] for attorneys, and speaks for many people [1:37] as a voice for attorneys in the United States. [1:40] So what has the ABA done with this impressive accumulation [1:45] of power and prestige? [1:47] Unfortunately, it appears that the ABA, [1:49] ideologically captured by radical leftists, [1:53] has continuously pursued discriminatory DEI practices. [1:57] This included requiring law schools [2:00] to consider race as a factor for admissions [2:03] and to evaluate racial discrimination over a merit [2:06] in order to diversify the profession. [2:09] This wasn't done in secret. [2:11] The ABA published an accreditation standard to enforce it. [2:14] That's standard 206. [2:17] And the implementing guidance for standard 206 [2:21] says that even if those DEI practices are illegal [2:24] under a constitutional provision or statute, [2:27] that illegality is, quote, [2:29] not a justification for a school's noncompliance [2:33] with standard 206, end quote. [2:36] Even after the Supreme Court held in 2023 [2:39] that race-based admissions practices violate [2:42] the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment [2:44] to the U.S. Constitution, [2:46] the ABA did not voluntarily reverse course. [2:50] Instead, it doubled down and told law schools [2:52] it would continue to enforce its DEI standards [2:55] in the accreditation process. [2:57] Through accreditation standard 206 and standard 303C, [3:01] the ABA used its institutional power [3:04] to bully law schools to also require mandatory DEI-related courses [3:08] in addition to instituting race-based policies and admissions. [3:12] As we heard from witnesses during our hearing on July 14th, [3:16] discriminatory DEI policies, in addition to being illegal, [3:20] seek to pit Americans against one another [3:22] on account of their immutable characteristics [3:25] and at their core fundamentally reject [3:28] the American ideal of equal justice [3:30] and of achieving success based on one's merit. [3:33] The ABA, an organization made up of attorneys [3:36] who should know better, persisted in promoting DEI practices, [3:40] even though race-based admissions, forced speech, [3:43] and considering race and employment decisions [3:45] clearly violate the law. [3:48] Those practices violate federal civil rights statutes [3:51] passed by Congress more than 60 years ago [3:54] in addition to violating the U.S. Constitution. [3:57] It wasn't until President Trump issued executive orders [4:00] and threatened the ABA's accreditation monopoly [4:02] at the federal level that the ABA begrudgingly started [4:06] to assess whether to get rid of those DEI requirements. [4:10] Enforcement of Standard 206 on DEI and admissions [4:13] is currently suspended, [4:15] and although the ABA Standards Committee [4:16] recently recommended that it be repealed, [4:19] it received numerous comments still supporting [4:21] keeping DEI in full force, [4:24] and the full repeal has not yet taken effect. [4:27] Standard 303C on DEI-related mandatory coursework [4:32] remains in force, [4:33] and although the Accreditation Committee [4:35] is reviewing that standard as well, [4:37] no final decision has been made. [4:40] Meanwhile, the ABA devotes entire pages [4:42] on its public-facing website [4:44] to promoting DEI in the legal profession, [4:47] leaving me, for one, skeptical [4:50] that it has learned the error of its ways [4:52] and will make a clean break from its racist DEI policies. [4:57] ABA President Binke even stated in February of this year [5:00] when speaking to the ABA delegates that, quote, [5:03] we will not abandon our commitment [5:05] to diversity, equity, and inclusion, end quote. [5:09] Given this reality, it's no surprise [5:11] that many states like Florida, Texas, Alabama, [5:14] and Tennessee are moving away [5:16] or considering moving away [5:18] from the traditional monopoly [5:19] in law school accreditations exercised by the ABA. [5:23] Our purpose today is to examine the role [5:25] and future of an institution like the ABA [5:28] in law school accreditation [5:29] and in the legal profession in our country. [5:32] The harm that DEI has caused to the legal profession [5:35] and to Americans who deserve equal access to justice [5:38] and competent representation [5:40] from their legal professionals is extensive. [5:43] We must ensure a course of action [5:45] that will restore merit and integrity [5:47] to American law and the legal profession. [5:50] And with that, I yield to Ranking Member Simon [5:52] for her opening statement. [5:54] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [5:56] and thank you to the witnesses [5:57] and to the public who's joined us today [6:00] for this conversation. [6:01] You know, before the witnesses begin, [6:05] I want to talk to this room [6:07] about what you're going to hear in the next hour [6:10] because the script is not new. [6:13] We'll hear that a private, [6:15] independent association of attorneys [6:18] is the great racial menace of our age. [6:22] We will hear the word merit spoken [6:25] as if opportunity has ever truly been distributed [6:29] by merit in this country. [6:30] And we will hear that a diversity standard [6:33] already suspended and repealed somehow [6:36] still threatens the republic. [6:38] The majority has convened the machinery [6:42] of the United States Congress [6:43] to prosecute a rule that no longer is in question [6:47] at an institution that has already capitulated [6:51] to the President of the United States. [6:53] And they call this exercise oversight. [6:55] It's not oversight. [6:56] It's theater. [6:58] Because let's be clear, [7:00] you read the bylaws of said organization. [7:02] If we look at organizational charts [7:04] of said organization, [7:06] the council that sets up accreditation standards [7:10] is separate from the ABA professional organization [7:14] here today. [7:16] It exists to ensure that lawyers are qualified and ethical. [7:21] But we all know that qualified and ethical attorneys [7:25] and judges are often on the front lines, [7:28] the front lines of protecting Americans, [7:30] of preventing the Trump administration [7:33] from violating Americans' rights and the rule of law. [7:36] So I ask, and I think it's an important question, [7:39] is this conversation helping Americans? [7:42] Last year, fewer than 1 in 10,000 Americans [7:46] applied to an ABA accredited law school. [7:51] That's .02% of the population. [7:55] Yet, this is what the majority chooses to investigate today. [7:59] While 10 million Americans will lose their health insurance [8:05] because of the law that the majority wrote just last year, [8:09] which made the deepest cuts in Medicaid [8:12] in our country's history, [8:14] the American Bar Association cast no vote on that bill, [8:18] but 209 Republicans did. [8:22] Four million people have already lost their food assistance [8:26] faster than the Congressional Budget Office predicted. [8:29] This Congress ordered a 64-year-old woman [8:32] to prove her work hours [8:35] before she could keep groceries on the table. [8:37] It ended exemptions for our veterans, [8:39] people experiencing homelessness, [8:42] and children aging out. [8:44] A foster care, no Bar Association, wrote a word of it. [8:48] But the Republicans did. [8:51] 5,843 NIH grants have been terminated or frozen. [8:59] 383 clinical trials, and we all know who are in clinical trials, [9:06] were stopped midstream by this administration, [9:09] and more than 74,000 people enrolled were sent home. [9:15] Those are folks fighting cancer, ALS, [9:19] children struggling and waiting for another call [9:22] of a possible clinical trial, [9:23] only again to be turned away [9:25] because of this administration's actions. [9:27] And the Trump administration decided, [9:29] with all of those 7,000, 74,000 people, [9:33] that their lives weren't worth it. [9:35] More than 100 schoolgirls are buried beneath the rubble [9:39] from American munitions, [9:41] in a war that no Americans asked for, [9:43] but no Lawyers Association put those babies in the ground. [9:48] My colleagues, however, financed it. [9:50] So, if the American Bar Association [9:53] did none of those things, [9:56] why is the American Bar Association on deck? [9:59] I will tell you why. [10:00] Because they sued the president. [10:03] When lawyers were stripped of their security clearances [10:05] for representing his critics, [10:07] when law firms were pressed into nearly a billion dollars [10:11] in tribute to our president, [10:13] the ABA went to federal court, [10:15] and judge after judge ruled [10:18] that the administration's actions were unconstitutional. [10:22] The government lawyers argued only [10:24] that no one had standing to sue. [10:27] So the hearing that you're in today [10:29] is an answer to that lawsuit. [10:32] Pass force, with the word constitutional in its title, [10:36] has been assembled to collect a political debt [10:40] for the president, a president [10:42] that the courts keep ruling against. [10:45] And since the majority insist on talking about racism, [10:51] let's consult the record. [10:52] In 1912, the ABA expelled three black lawyers [10:56] it had admitted by mistake, [10:58] including William H. Lewis, [11:01] then the assistant general attorney, [11:03] assistant general attorney of the United States, [11:06] because of its settled practice [11:08] to only admit white men. [11:10] After public outrage, [11:11] the ABA reinstated them. [11:14] Then it amended its application process, [11:17] so that every future applicant had to declare their race. [11:21] It knowingly admitted no other black lawyers [11:25] for another three decades. [11:28] So the diversity standard on trial today [11:31] was a part of the ABA's effort [11:33] to reckon with that history. [11:35] The majority arrives a century late, [11:38] silent about the discrimination, [11:40] yet furious about its repair. [11:44] The Constitution is not endangered [11:47] because more Americans entered the legal profession. [11:50] It is endangered when power is used [11:54] to punish those who challenge it, [11:56] when oversight becomes retaliation, [11:59] and when Congress mistakes grievance for governance. [12:04] History will remember which side, [12:07] that choice we stood on, and I yield back. [12:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [12:11] Thank you, Ranking Member Seidman. [12:13] And now I'd like to welcome our witnesses once again. [12:16] Thank you all for being here. [12:18] First, we have Michelle Binke, [12:20] President of the American Bar Association. [12:23] President Binke has held her position since 2024, [12:26] and prior to that, [12:27] served in various other leadership positions within the ABA, [12:31] including serving as Chair of the ABA Commission [12:33] on Racial and Ethnic Diversity in the Profession. [12:36] Second, we have Zach Smith, [12:38] Senior Legal Fellow of Courts in the Constitution [12:40] at the Heritage Foundation's Legal Policy Center. [12:43] Next, we have David Blackman, [12:45] a Texas State Guard veteran and former student [12:48] from Penn State University Law School, [12:50] who is directly affected by DEI radicalism in his law school. [12:55] Thank you all for joining us, [12:56] and I look forward to your testimony. [13:00] Pursuant to Committee Rule 9-G, [13:01] the witnesses will please stand and raise their right hand. [13:08] Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony [13:10] that you are about to give is the truth, [13:12] the whole truth and nothing but the truth, [13:14] so help you God. [13:17] Let the record show that the witnesses answered [13:19] in the affirmative. [13:20] Thank you, you can take a seat. [13:23] We appreciate you being here today [13:24] and look forward to your testimony. [13:26] Let me remind the witnesses [13:27] that we will have read your written statements, [13:30] and it will appear in full in the hearing record. [13:33] Please limit your oral statement to five minutes. [13:36] As a reminder, please press the button [13:37] on the microphone in front of you [13:38] so that it is on and the members can hear you. [13:41] When you begin to speak, [13:42] the light in front of you will turn green. [13:43] After four minutes, the light will turn yellow. [13:45] When the red light comes on, [13:47] your five minutes have expired, [13:48] and we would ask that you please wrap up. [13:51] I now recognize President Behnke [13:53] for her opening statement. [13:57] Good afternoon, Chairman Gill, [13:59] Ranking Member, Simon, [14:01] and distinguished members of the task force. [14:03] Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. [14:06] My name is Michelle Behnke, [14:08] and I am serving as the President [14:10] of the American Bar Association, [14:12] a non-partisan membership organization [14:14] open to all American lawyers. [14:17] I practice law in Madison, Wisconsin, [14:19] where my husband and I have raised [14:22] our two now adult children. [14:24] I've been a lawyer for almost 40 years, [14:27] focusing on real estate business and estate planning. [14:30] I began my one-year term [14:32] as President of the ABA last August. [14:35] Each and every day, I put on this pin, [14:40] and I am proud to represent our 250,000 members [14:44] from every state across the country [14:46] and all walks of life. [14:48] Our members come from red states and blue states. [14:51] They range from solo practitioners [14:53] to lawyers in big firms, [14:55] and their practices include everything [14:57] from family law to criminal defense [14:59] to commercial contracts and litigation. [15:01] When the ABA, as an organization, [15:04] takes a position, [15:05] it reflects the considered judgment [15:07] of this diverse membership. [15:10] The ABA has been carrying out its mission [15:12] to serve and strengthen the American legal system [15:15] for nearly 150 years. [15:17] As the national representative [15:18] and voice of the legal profession, [15:20] we are dedicated to serving the legal community [15:23] and the public by defending liberty [15:26] and pursuing justice. [15:28] The rule of law does not defend itself. [15:31] Lawyers do. [15:33] And that's why I've chosen to serve. [15:36] It's also the reason I'd like to address the subject [15:38] of today's hearing. [15:40] The ABA is deeply committed [15:43] to fostering a justice system [15:45] that everyone in America can have access to [15:48] and confidence in. [15:50] When our practice is open and inclusive and unbiased, [15:54] we attract a wider range of talent and perspectives. [15:58] Diversity and excellence are not mutually exclusive. [16:03] In fact, the opposite is true. [16:06] Diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives [16:09] enhance merit within the legal profession. [16:11] When we have diverse teams, [16:13] our profession is stronger. [16:16] It enhances our ability to solve our clients' problems. [16:20] When we can tap into the varied experiences [16:22] and perspectives of people from every background [16:25] and every community. [16:27] When someone asks me whether we've arrived [16:29] at a truly open profession, [16:31] I think back to my parents. [16:34] When Brown versus Board of Education was decided in 1954, [16:38] the decision that dismantled the legal framework [16:41] of separate but equal, [16:43] my mom and dad were just 12 years old, [16:46] living in Mississippi. [16:48] Segregation and legalized racial discrimination [16:51] shaped the world they grew up in. [16:53] Their daughter later became the first black woman [16:56] elected to serve as president of the State Bar of Wisconsin. [17:00] And now I sit before you as the president [17:02] of the American Bar Association. [17:04] Our story is proof that there has been progress, [17:08] but the numbers tell us that there's still more work to do. [17:12] The data shows that women, lawyers of color, [17:14] and other groups remain drastically underrepresented [17:17] in the American legal community. [17:18] Barriers still remain. [17:20] Barriers that prevent talented individuals [17:23] from pursuing legal careers [17:25] and rising within the profession once they enter it. [17:28] Working to identify and reduce those barriers [17:31] enhances merit within the profession itself [17:34] by ensuring everyone has the opportunity [17:36] to bring their capabilities to the practice of law. [17:40] That is what true meritocracy looks like, [17:43] and that is what the ABA strives toward. [17:46] Next, I'd like to talk about the importance [17:49] of a national law school accreditation [17:51] to the American legal system. [17:54] The Council of the ABA Section on Legal Education [17:57] and Admission to the Bar has been recognized [17:59] by the Department of Education [18:01] as the national accrediting body for JD programs [18:04] for more than 70 years. [18:06] The Council is separate and independent from the ABA, [18:10] and this separation is legally required [18:12] by the Department of Education. [18:15] So while I can't speak for the Council, [18:17] I can tell you what the Council's work means [18:19] for the American public and potential law students. [18:23] When someone enters a lawyer's office facing divorce [18:26] or criminal charge or a business dispute, [18:29] they don't have the opportunity [18:30] to audit the lawyer's legal education. [18:34] They have to trust that the lawyer received [18:36] a quality education. [18:38] The accreditation system is what makes that trust possible. [18:42] The Council's accreditation system is also a promise [18:45] to every law student that their degree will be portable [18:49] and that they will have the opportunity to practice [18:52] in any state, not just where they went to law school. [18:56] In closing, I'd like to underscore, at the ABA, [19:00] we believe in a legal profession that is open to anyone [19:03] with the talent and drive to serve, [19:05] and we believe in the rule of law [19:07] that guarantees the fundamental rights of every American. [19:11] Thank you again for the opportunity to appear. [19:15] Thank you, and I now recognize Zach Smith [19:17] for his opening statement. [19:19] Thank you, Chairman Gill, Ranking Member Simon, [19:21] members of the committee for this opportunity [19:23] to testify before you today. [19:25] The American Bar Association has abandoned its mission [19:28] to provide best practices for the legal profession. [19:31] Instead, it has opted to push a partisan program full [19:35] of radical policies. [19:36] For example, the ABA has weighed in on hot-button cultural issues [19:39] by supporting nationwide abortion and racial discrimination [19:43] at American universities. [19:44] It has opposed Second Amendment rights, and it has attacked states [19:48] that refuse to let children cut off their genitals if they feel [19:51] they were born in the wrong body. [19:53] Even more egregiously, for an organization supposedly dedicated [19:57] to the rule of law, it has taken the absurd and patently incorrect position [20:02] that our Constitution has 28 instead of 27 amendments. [20:06] This position that the Equal Rights Amendment has become part [20:09] of our Constitution is so egregious that even the Biden-appointed Archivist [20:15] of the United States, the official that certifies newly enacted [20:19] constitutional amendments rejected it out of hand. [20:22] As a private organization, the ABA is free to adopt almost any policy it wishes, [20:28] but the federal government recognizes the ABA's Council of the Section [20:31] of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar [20:34] as the sole federally recognized law school accreditor. [20:38] And when this entity, which is nominally under the auspices of the ABA, [20:42] exercises government-sanctioned authority, it must comport [20:46] with the Constitution, but it doesn't. [20:49] In fact, as current President Michelle Benke made clear [20:52] in a February 2026 speech, the ABA will not abandon its commitment [20:57] to diversity, equity, and inclusion, because now is not the time [21:00] to take back the progress that we have made. [21:03] And she delivered introductory remarks at the ABA's 2026 Equity Summit, [21:07] which the ABA Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Center hosted [21:10] in coordination with the ABA's DEI Advisory Council. [21:15] The summit included panels with titles like Disparate Impact Liability [21:18] and Old Innovation That Remains Advantageous, Beyond Rainbow Logos, [21:22] Centering LGBTQ Plus Voices Who Fuel Innovation, Equity, [21:26] and Better Lawyering, and Professional Conduct in a Fractured Climate, [21:30] Model Rule 8.4G, DEI Challenges, and Ethical Lawyering. [21:35] Now, for those unfamiliar with the ABA's Model Rule 8.4G, [21:39] it's a chilling speech code put forward by the ABA [21:43] under the guise of policing the professionalism of lawyers. [21:46] But it has drawn condemnation from across the political spectrum, [21:50] and one Pennsylvania federal court found that Pennsylvania's version [21:54] of this professional conduct rule, [21:56] which was based on the ABA's model, was unconstitutional, [22:00] though that case was later dismissed for other reasons. [22:03] While the council is supposed to be nominally independent [22:06] from the larger ABA, there are very real reasons to question [22:10] just how independent the council really is, [22:13] given the co-branding and Byzantine relationship [22:16] between the two entities. [22:18] Even setting aside that overlap, [22:20] the council itself has taken a number of controversial actions, [22:24] including targeting law schools such as George Mason or St. Thomas, [22:27] for not implementing its radical DEI and other progressive policies [22:32] aggressively enough. [22:33] Now that it's facing an existential crisis [22:36] and the loss of its monopoly on law school accreditation, [22:39] the council seeks to back away [22:41] from some of its most egregious positions. [22:44] Consider, as we heard, [22:45] that it now seeks to repeal accreditation standard 206, [22:48] which requires law schools to demonstrate by concrete action [22:51] a commitment to diversity and inclusion, [22:54] which it interpreted as requiring law schools [22:56] to treat students, faculty, and staff differently [22:59] based on their race. [23:01] But the council isn't making this move [23:03] having reevaluated its position, [23:05] or even after having reevaluated [23:07] the proper role of an accreditor. [23:08] It's making this move out of crass self-preservation. [23:12] When it perceived the political winds [23:13] to be blowing in a different direction several years ago, [23:16] the council demanded that law schools comply with standard 206, [23:20] even if constitutional or statutory provisions required otherwise. [23:25] In other words, the council said its rules trump the constitution. [23:30] That's shocking. [23:32] So what's to be done? [23:33] First, Congress and the executive branch [23:35] should build on the good work that has been done [23:37] and eliminate the ABA as the sole law school accreditor. [23:41] Congress should update relevant statutory provisions [23:44] to prohibit the recognition of any accreditor [23:47] that imposes DEI requirements, [23:49] and Congress should build on the work of states [23:51] that have eliminated the ABA as the gatekeeper [23:54] to state bar exams. [23:55] If other states continue to rely solely on the ABA [23:59] for this function, [24:00] Congress should strip those states [24:01] of relevant federal funds. [24:03] As Justice John Marshall Harlan had the foresight [24:06] and fortitude to make clear 130 years ago, [24:09] our Constitution is colorblind, [24:12] and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. [24:15] But the ABA has been using its accrediting authority [24:18] to undermine these constitutional commitments [24:21] to equal treatment regardless of race. [24:23] In closing, the federal government and states [24:26] must continue to take actions [24:28] to end the ABA's monopolistic status [24:31] as a law school accreditor. [24:32] Thank you. [24:35] Thank you, and I now recognize David Blackman [24:37] for his opening statement. [24:40] Chairman Gill, Ranking Member Simon, [24:42] honored task force members, [24:44] I thank you for the honor of speaking before you today [24:47] and the ability to tell my story. [24:49] I will not spend much time on the specifics [24:51] of my departure from Dickinson Law, [24:54] seeing as those events are well in the public record. [24:57] However, I want to be clear about who I am [24:59] and why I walked away. [25:01] When I served as a 911 dispatcher in Texas, [25:04] I operated under a system of objective rules [25:07] and clear standards. [25:09] I went to law school believing the legal profession [25:12] held that same reverence for objective truth. [25:15] I was wrong. [25:17] I did not leave because the coursework was too difficult. [25:20] I left and pivoted my career because I realized [25:24] the institution was demanding ideological conformity [25:27] over objective legal analysis. [25:30] In the world of business school, we deal in facts, [25:33] concrete frameworks, and strict compliance. [25:36] But on our law schools, this framework has been replaced [25:40] by a political litmus test. [25:42] The American Bar Association has done more damage [25:45] to the neutral administration of our laws [25:48] than any other institution in modern America. [25:51] The impact of standards 206 and 303 will be felt [25:55] for a generation. [25:57] This is, without a doubt, the biggest implementation [25:59] of mandatory DEI in higher education across our nation, [26:04] touching the lives of every law student who chooses [26:08] to walk the path of Abraham Lincoln and Thurgood Marshall. [26:12] Hell, make no mistake, members of Congress, [26:15] DEI does not care for the opinions of the police officer, [26:19] nor the letter of the law. [26:21] DEI does not care for the principles [26:23] on which our republic was founded. [26:26] DEI does not consider the violent felon, [26:29] nor does it confront the victim, [26:32] comfort the victim of an attack. [26:34] Instead, it looks to determine if the perpetrator is a minority [26:38] or what in their background drove them to commit the crime. [26:42] DEI does not care for the frustration of the veteran judge, [26:46] who is now being pressured by activist lawyers [26:49] to abandon blind justice in the name of equity. [26:52] DEI is not only incompatible with Americanism, [26:56] but it is incompatible with the study of law itself. [27:00] Because DEI seeks to break down the laws, [27:03] framing them as inherently racist because of standard 303 . [27:08] Law students around our country are being taught [27:11] that they must consider the law as an oppressive tool. [27:14] This will inevitably lead to judicial activism, [27:19] where judges rule not based on the laws of our nation, [27:23] but based on their own opinions of fairness. [27:27] You might ask how an unelected organization [27:30] forces every law school in America to adopt this worldview. [27:35] The answer is extortion. [27:37] The ABA leverages its monopoly over accreditation as a weapon. [27:41] If a university does not bend to these diversity standards, [27:45] they risk their accreditation, [27:47] and their students risk the ability to sit for the bar exam. [27:51] The ABA is acting as a cartel, [27:53] enforcing an ideological tax on every future lawyer [27:57] and every university that accepts federal funds. [28:00] The American Bar Association has much to answer for, [28:04] and it's high time that this monopoly be held accountable [28:07] for the implosion of blind justice it has caused. [28:10] They know they are in legal peril. [28:12] They have quietly tried to backtrack on these radical standards [28:16] since the Supreme Court struck down race-based admissions. [28:20] But make no mistake, even though they scrubbed the language, [28:24] the activist programs they created remain. [28:28] We must work together to ensure that these standards [28:31] of viewpoint discrimination, DEI, and critical race theories, [28:35] are removed from our law schools before it is too late. [28:39] Thank you. [28:41] Thank you, and I want to, once again, [28:43] thank the witnesses for being here. [28:44] We're now going to move on to the question and answer portion [28:48] of our hearing, and we'll begin with Chairman Jordan. [28:51] I now recognize Chairman Jordan for five minutes. [28:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [28:56] Ms. Banke, a press statement, November 30th, 2023, [28:59] headline reads, American Bar Association withdraws [29:02] two statements on Israel-Hamas war. [29:05] Why did the ABA withdraw those statements? [29:09] Congressman, I am the president and became the president last August. [29:13] The process for either making statements or withdrawing statements, [29:18] those particular statements happened outside of my time in presidency. [29:22] I understand that, but why did they do it? [29:24] The president of the same association that withdrew the statement, [29:26] do you know why they did it? [29:28] Each year, when the ABA takes positions, [29:32] they do so based on policy that has been adopted by our- [29:35] Who are the good guys in the Israel-Hamas war, Ms. Banke? [29:41] When we adopt policy- [29:42] No, that wasn't my question. [29:43] I just asked you a new question. [29:44] Who are the good guys in the Israel-Hamas war? [29:46] I have nothing to add other than we adopted policy- [29:49] Simple question. [29:50] Israel's our ally, one of our best friends. [29:53] They were attacked on October 7th. [29:54] One of these statements that was withdrawn by the ABA came out on October 9th, [29:58] two days after women and children were killed and raped and taken hostage, [30:02] villages destroyed. [30:03] Israel's fighting a terrorist organization. [30:05] I'm asking you a simple question. [30:06] Who are the good guys, Israel or the terrorist organization? [30:09] The ABA adopted policy, and when the ABA adopts policy, [30:14] then statements are issued, and those are the decisions- [30:16] You're not asking about the statements right now. [30:17] Forget the statements for a second. [30:19] I'm asking you a simple question. [30:20] Who do you want to win, Israel or the terrorist organization? [30:22] Nothing. [30:23] I have nothing further to add. [30:25] My personal opinion is not relevant. [30:27] I am here as the president of the American Bar Association. [30:29] You took statements down, statements that were issued two days after Israel was attacked. [30:34] The statements were taken down because they were deeply flawed because they suggested Israel [30:39] was guilty of war crimes. [30:41] That was ridiculous, and you took those statements down. [30:43] Now I'm asking you as the head of the Bar Association, who are the good guys in this conflict? [30:47] Our friend and ally, Israel, or the terrorist organization, Hamas? [30:51] This is not a trick question. [30:52] It's actually a simple question. [30:53] I have nothing further to add. [30:55] You won't answer. [30:57] Third sentence of your written testimony. [30:59] You said that the American Bar Association is a nonpartisan organization. [31:05] Is that really true? [31:06] Yes, sir. [31:07] It is. [31:08] Really? [31:09] Do you take any partisan positions as the American Bar Association? [31:12] The ABA takes position when our House of Delegates- [31:15] The association opposes any law that restricts abortion. [31:19] This came out after the Dobbs decision. [31:21] That's pretty partisan. [31:22] The American Bar Association opposes detention of individuals who are here illegally. [31:28] Any migrants who break our immigration laws, you oppose detention. [31:31] Those sound pretty partisan positions to me. [31:33] Would you agree? [31:35] The ABA takes positions by our House of Delegates, which is made up of 600 lawyers from across [31:41] the country. [31:42] When we take positions, we do so based on the information that we believe is- [31:46] How about men and women's force? [31:48] Do you have a position on that? [31:49] I don't have a list of all of our- [31:52] I'll read from the American Bar Association adopted by the House of Delegates, August 9th, [31:59] 2021 resolution. [32:00] The American Bar Association opposes any federal, state, local, territorial, tribal regulation [32:05] or policy that prohibits transgender students from participating in athletics in accordance [32:10] with their gender identity. [32:11] Sounds like you're for men and women's sports to me. [32:15] Our House of Delegates adopted a resolution based on the discussion and debate of our 600-member [32:21] House of Delegates. [32:23] I've never heard of a nonpartisan organization that's for unrestricted abortion, no detention [32:29] for people who break our immigration law and who want men and women's sports. [32:33] I've never heard of a nonpartisan organization adopt those positions. [32:39] You still say you're nonpartisan? [32:40] I do, sir. [32:41] Wow. [32:42] That's amazing. [32:43] Nonpartisan and won't tell us who you want to win the war, our ally or a terrorist organization. [32:48] Mr. Smith, the marketplace has a way of speaking. [32:51] How many lawyers do we have in the United States of America? [32:54] Several million. [32:55] Several million. [32:56] Do you know how many are in the American Bar Association? [32:58] I think it's like 1.5 million lawyers in the country. [33:01] Some people might think that's too many. [33:03] I don't know that that is or isn't. [33:05] 1.5 million, I think. [33:06] How many do you know are in the Bar Association? [33:09] Members of the ABA? [33:10] I don't know that number off the top. [33:11] Like 200 and some thousand. [33:13] Most lawyers say, I don't want to join this nonpartisan organization. [33:18] You think maybe it has something to do with their partisanship, why they don't want to [33:21] join? [33:22] Well, I think that's the reason you're seeing state Supreme Courts moving away from having [33:25] the ABA act as the gatekeeper for lawyers to be able to sit for their state. [33:29] Several states are doing that, right? [33:30] Tennessee, Texas, Florida, saying we don't want these guys who can't even tell [33:35] us that they want our ally to win a war, who take all kinds of left-wing positions and [33:41] then pretend to be nonpartisan. [33:42] We don't want them doing the accreditation for our law schools in our respective state. [33:46] Is that accurate? [33:47] That is accurate. [33:48] I think it's the marketplace speaking. [33:49] The American people, American lawyers are saying, no, no, no, we're tired of this left-wing [33:54] operation. [33:56] Yes. [33:57] I think that is accurate, Congressman. [33:58] I will yield back to the chairman. [34:03] Thank you, Chairman Jordan. [34:04] And I now recognize Mr. Min for five minutes for the purpose of asking questions. [34:08] Thank you, Chair Gill, Ranking Member Simon for hosting what appears to be a rerun of last [34:13] week's hearing. [34:15] Before I get into the substance of this hearing, I did want to just note again something that [34:19] I think goes to the heart of the credibility of this particular hearing. [34:22] This task force was created to defend constitutional rights and expose institutional abuses. [34:28] We have myriad examples of this happening right now, the issues that my constituents are calling [34:31] me about, whether it's the illegal war in Iran, whether it's the illegal abuses by ICE, [34:38] real constitutional abuses. [34:39] And instead of focusing on any of these actual constitutional abuses by President Trump, we [34:43] were once again focused on DEI, diversity, equity, and inclusion. [34:48] I also want to just note something just to show how unserious this hearing is. [34:53] Ms. Banke, I just want to clarify, you're the president of the American Bar Association, [34:56] the primary professional organization of lawyers in the United States. [34:59] Is that correct? [35:00] That is correct. [35:01] Does the ABA accredit law schools? [35:04] The Council of Accreditation and Admissions to the Bar does the accreditation work, but [35:09] that is separate and apart from the association as is required by the Department of Education. [35:15] So the Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education Admissions, the Council is responsible [35:19] for accreditation. [35:20] And that, as you noted, is a separate entity as required by the Department of Education. [35:25] I want to apologize on behalf of this entire committee for wasting your time and inviting [35:29] you here because this is not supposed to be you, but someone from the Council that should [35:33] be addressing our committee. [35:35] Is that correct? [35:36] The Council is responsible for accreditation, so I can't speak on behalf of the Council. [35:40] That is fair. [35:41] And I think this is a failure of this committee showing how unserious this is because we don't [35:46] even understand, apparently, the basic structure of legal education. [35:48] We're inviting the wrong witness to testify before this committee. [35:51] This is not a minor failure. [35:53] This is something that goes to the heart of this. [35:55] This is a bunch of mistruths, half-truths, trying to create a smear campaign against the ABA [36:00] and against law schools. [36:01] Now, I was a law professor myself once upon a time, actually served on our admissions [36:05] committee at one point. [36:07] And I have some familiarity with what happened here. [36:09] And I just want to address, Mr. Blackman, I had a chance to read your testimony. [36:15] And I will just note, I don't know what the policies at Penn State Dickinson are, but in [36:19] my law school, at every law school I'm aware of, it would be extremely inappropriate for a [36:23] 1L student to write a message to every single person on the law school email list. [36:29] It's highly prohibited at my school, so I'm not sure why you think that's a suppression [36:33] of your free speech. [36:34] It really has nothing to do with the content of what you were saying. [36:37] I would suspect that that is a policy matter of, we don't want 1Ls addressing the entire [36:41] law school community. [36:43] Another point I would make to you in regards to your testimony, you make a great deal about [36:48] how you were forced to take a class on race and the Equal Protection Clause. [36:52] You understand, I know you didn't finish law school, you maybe finished a semester. [36:56] That is a core part of the 14th Amendment. [36:58] That is something that is taught in every con-law class and every law school in America. [37:02] I don't know why you thought that was so offensive, why that forced you to drop out of law school, [37:06] but part of the law school pedagogy is addressing topics that we may not agree with. [37:11] The idea here is to custom us with understanding the other side's position, an integral part [37:16] of being a lawyer. [37:17] I wish you had taken more classes. [37:19] I taught many conservative students, some of them were among my best students, precisely [37:23] because they challenged the orthodoxy of other students. [37:27] They made other students uncomfortable, but in that process, they also learned to understand [37:31] and empathize with opposing arguments. [37:33] And that is a core part of the pedagogy here. [37:36] Now, I want to just point out another problem here with this entire line of questioning and [37:39] some of the testimony that we have read today, including from you, Mr. Smith, with one of the [37:43] relevant cases that has governed basically my entire life on affirmative action, 1978 Supreme [37:49] Court decision in regions of UC versus Backey. [37:53] As we all know, I think we all know, the Supreme Court in this decision prohibited universities [37:59] from using strict race-based quotas during the college or other admissions processes. [38:04] They allowed race and other protected classes to be factors, but when I was on the admissions [38:08] committee, this was before the decision in Harvard, we were allowed to use race as a factor. [38:13] We were not allowed to actually have any kind of quotas. [38:16] We could not say, for example, we don't have enough black students. [38:18] We need to admit more. [38:19] That would have been exactly illegal. [38:22] Ms. Bancke, I want to ask you, you're aware of the 2023 Supreme Court decision, Students [38:27] for Fair Admissions versus Harvard. [38:28] Is that right? [38:29] Yes, I am. [38:30] And you know that in that decision, they held that UNC's and Harvard's race-conscious admissions [38:34] practices were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI. [38:39] While I would note that this ended race-based admissions, but did not actually eliminate [38:44] all DEI practices, and what is still allowed to be quotas or to be factors in admissions, [38:51] geographic diversity is something we know universities and law schools take great pride in. [38:54] We can say we have people from rural Alabama as well as California. [38:58] We also know that they're allowed to take ideological diversity into consideration. [39:01] That is something that my law school took very seriously. [39:04] We hired more conservatives. [39:05] It was definitely a factor, people that needed a little bump up. [39:08] You said, we don't have enough conservatives here on our faculty. [39:11] We don't have enough conservatives in our student body. [39:13] We admitted those students. [39:14] We bumped up the faculty for that reason. [39:16] And I would just note, just to close, that these practices of geographic and ideological [39:20] diversity actually benefit kids, say, from rural Alabama conservatives much more than [39:25] they do, say, Asian kids from Irvine. [39:27] I don't know why we're focused on race and not on ideological and geographic diversity. [39:31] And with that, I yield back. [39:33] Gentlemen, it's time. [39:35] All right. [39:37] I now recognize myself for five minutes for the purpose of asking questions, and thank [39:43] you to all of the witnesses, again, for taking the time to come. [39:48] Before this hearing, which I think is incredibly important, Ms. Banke, according to the ABA's [39:57] website, quote, all of us have implicit biases. [40:00] Would you agree with that statement? [40:01] The ABA believes that diversity, equity, and inclusion improves the practice… [40:07] Would you agree with the statement that, quote, all of us have implicit biases from [40:11] the ABA's website? [40:12] The ABA believes that diversity in all of its… [40:15] Is that a yes? [40:16] Can I take that? [40:17] It's a yes or no question. [40:18] Do you believe that all of us have implicit biases, as your website says? [40:22] The ABA looks to remove barriers, and we examine… [40:25] That's not my question, ma'am. [40:27] Do you believe that all of us have implicit biases? [40:29] Yeah. [40:30] I've expressed… [40:31] You do. [40:32] I've expressed what the ABA is doing… [40:33] You do. [40:34] That is the ABA's position, as expressed by their website. [40:39] Against which groups do you have implicit biases? [40:42] The ABA believes that it's important to always… [40:45] Are you going to filibuster? [40:46] Because it doesn't make you sound very good. [40:48] I'm going to ask you again, against which groups do you have implicit biases? [40:52] It's important to always examine everyone's point of view and where they may need to consider… [40:59] It is. [41:00] What about your point of view? [41:02] I am here as the president of the American Bar Association… [41:05] And I'm asking you what your implicit biases are. [41:08] The ABA as an entity… [41:09] Have you reflected on your implicit biases? [41:11] I think about how I operate the world constantly. [41:14] What are they? [41:15] Would you like to explain to us what they are? [41:17] I am here speaking on behalf of the ABA and the ABA's… [41:21] All right. [41:22] We're going to move on. [41:23] Was race a factor in Ketanji Brown Jackson's Supreme Court nomination? [41:26] I have no idea how that process works. [41:31] I'm a real estate lawyer… [41:32] President Biden stated, quote, I've made no decision except one, and that's that [41:38] that person will be the first black woman ever nominated to the United States Supreme Court. [41:42] So I think it's fair to say that race was… and gender were factors in that nomination process. [41:47] Wouldn't you agree? [41:48] You would have to have a conversation… [41:51] He explicitly stated that, so I think it's fair to say… [41:54] You're a lawyer. [41:55] I think that's fair to say. [41:57] Do you think that it's just or righteous that Joe Biden explicitly excluded black men [42:04] in the nomination process for the Supreme Court vacancy? [42:08] The ABA does not support discrimination of any sort. [42:12] So you don't think that it was proper for Joe Biden to exclude every group other than [42:18] black women in deciding who should fill that Supreme Court vacancy? [42:21] Is that your testimony? [42:23] The ABA relishes diversity, equity, and inclusion… [42:26] Right. [42:27] But is it acceptable for Joe Biden to exclude black men in the nomination pool for the Supreme [42:34] Court? [42:35] The ABA never supports discrimination. [42:37] That's… [42:38] That's good to hear. [42:39] And you believe… [42:40] I think… [42:41] Tell me if… [42:42] That the Supreme Court should roughly resemble the racial diversity of the country? [42:49] The ABA does not believe that quotas are appropriate. [42:52] It is… [42:53] According to the ABA's mission statement on its website, it states that judges… [42:58] It increases the quality of our judicial system whenever judges resemble the vast racial diversity [43:06] of our society. [43:07] So would you say that it's helpful, it's beneficial if our Supreme Court resembles the racial diversity [43:13] of America? [43:14] The ABA believes that diversity in all of its forms is important. [43:17] So it is a good thing. [43:18] We want people to bring… [43:19] All of who they are, whether they be from small practice or large practice… [43:24] Diversity… [43:25] Can you define diversity here? [43:26] You want it to… [43:27] Should the Supreme Court resemble America's racial makeup, roughly? [43:31] It's a yes or no question. [43:33] The ABA does not support quotas. [43:36] We… [43:37] I'm not asking about quotas. [43:38] I'm asking if it should roughly resemble America's racial makeup. [43:41] It should represent… [43:42] Represent… [43:43] All of what people are… [43:44] Of what people are. [43:45] Okay. [43:46] So right now, there's about… [43:47] About two of… [43:48] Two of nine of Supreme Court justices are black. [43:51] That's about 22% of the Supreme Court. [43:55] According to your testimony, about 13% of America's population is black. [43:59] If… [44:00] If the Supreme Court should roughly resemble America's demographic makeup, as the ABA states, [44:06] is proper, in your opinion, regardless of qualifications, should the Senate refuse to confirm [44:12] a third black Supreme Court justice? [44:15] The ABA supports and encourages diversity in all of its forms. [44:21] That wasn't my question. [44:22] My question was, if a Supreme Court vacancy opens up, should the Senate refuse to confirm [44:28] a third black Supreme Court nominee based on his race or her race? [44:34] The ABA does not support quotas and so… [44:37] The ABA does support some sort of… [44:39] We're going to… [44:40] Hopefully, we'll get into that. [44:41] The ABA does support… [44:44] Making sure the ethnic makeup has a specific amount. [44:46] But my… [44:47] My time is up. [44:48] So we will… [44:49] We will move on. [44:50] And with that, I yield… [44:55] I recognize Mr. Walkinshaw for five minutes. [44:57] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [44:59] Constance Baker Motley. [45:01] She was a Columbia Law School graduate. [45:05] The first black woman to argue before the Supreme Court. [45:08] The first female attorney at the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, where she became [45:12] a lead trial attorney. [45:13] In consequential early civil rights cases, she represented Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. [45:19] She wrote the original complaint in Brown v. Board of Education and Meredith v. Fair. [45:25] She won the case that resulted in James Meredith becoming the first black student to attend [45:30] the University of Mississippi. [45:32] She was later an elected official, a federal district court judge. [45:37] Ms. Banke, you have dedicated your career both to the legal profession and to expanding [45:42] access to that profession. [45:43] I want to thank you for your service and for being here today. [45:47] The supposed purpose of our task force here is to defend constitutional rights and expose [45:52] institutional abuses. [45:53] Your testimony emphasizes the ABA is deeply committed both to ensuring diversity within [46:00] the legal profession and to preserving the rule of law. [46:03] And I can think of no better example than Judge Motley to demonstrate why those commitments [46:08] are closely connected and how together they can help us defend our constitutional rights [46:14] and expose institutional abuses. [46:16] What this task force is supposed to do because diversity in the legal profession isn't just [46:21] about who's present or who gets admitted to a law school classroom or hired at a law firm. [46:27] It's about ensuring that people from every background, liberal, conservative, urban, rural, [46:35] male, female, every background, have a seat at the table, an opportunity to use the law to identify [46:41] and challenge abuses of power because people who have witnessed institutional abuse or experienced it [46:49] or come from communities whose rights have historically been denied might recognize an injustice that others overlook. [47:00] And a legal education can give them the tools to challenge those injustices, hold those institutions accountable, [47:07] and prevent abuses from continuing. [47:11] I think that's a concept that this administration and some of my colleagues are terrified by, quite frankly. [47:18] Judge Motley broke barriers. [47:21] She strengthened the profession. [47:23] She forced powerful institutions to abide by the rule of law in the Constitution. [47:28] She made our country greater. [47:30] That's exactly why diversity in the legal profession matters. [47:33] A system that draws its lawyers, judges, public officials from every background is better equipped [47:40] to recognize institutional abuses and to end them. [47:44] So, unfortunately, I don't think this hearing is about defending constitutional rights or exposing institutional abuses. [47:50] I think it's about making it harder for women and people of color to pursue a legal education, [47:57] making it harder for them to get the tools required to protect their own rights, protect all of our rights, and expose abuse. [48:06] Ms. Banke, from your experience as a law student, a lawyer, the president of the State Bar of Wisconsin, [48:13] if I have that right, and now the president of the ABA, [48:16] can you speak to how diversity in all its forms in the legal profession can help defend Americans' constitutional rights [48:27] and prevent institutional abuses? [48:29] How can diversity help us to accomplish those really important goals? [48:34] When you have a diverse group, people who have different experiences, people who have looked at the issue from different ways, [48:43] that helps expand the problem-solving. [48:47] There are studies that have been done by McKenzie and Harvard Business Review [48:51] who indicate that the more diverse a team is, the better the solutions are. [48:57] At the end of the day, lawyers are there to solve their clients' problems, [49:01] to solve the issues that face our society in the way of legal issues. [49:07] And so when you have a diverse group, you have better outcomes, [49:11] and when you have better outcomes, then the public, as well as the particular clients, [49:16] have greater confidence in the system. [49:18] Yeah, I couldn't agree more. [49:20] Look, I've been on a lot of teams in my life, sports teams, professional offices, organizations, [49:27] boards, committees, commissions. [49:30] In every single case, I have found that those teams are stronger when there's a diversity of perspectives [49:38] and backgrounds and views. [49:40] And I don't understand how we got to a point in this country where there are people in very high positions of power [49:46] so terrified by that. [49:48] Mr. Chairman, I yield back. [49:49] Thank you. [49:54] Thank you, Mr. Walkinshaw. [49:55] I now recognize Mr. Cloud for five minutes for the purpose of asking questions. [50:01] Thank you, Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing. [50:05] You say that the American Borrowed Association is nonpartisan. [50:09] That's correct? [50:10] You maintain that as your testimony today? [50:12] Yes, sir. [50:13] I'm not sure. [50:14] I'm not sure. [50:15] I'm not sure. [50:16] I'm not sure. [50:17] I'm not sure. [50:18] I'm not sure. [50:19] Yet, when we look at the amicus briefs filed over the last 10 years by the ABA, 87 briefs [50:21] have been filed. [50:22] 80% of the organizations filing advocated for liberal and progressive outcomes. [50:27] Only 21% of the ABA's briefs concerned matters directly related to the legal profession. [50:34] Of 87 briefs filed over the 10-year period, 70 favor liberal and progressive outcomes, 17 [50:42] were genuinely neutral in nature, and zero can be characterized as conservative aligned. [50:48] Why is that? [50:50] When the ABA files an amicus, we can only do so when two factors are in existence. [51:00] First, the ABA has to have policy. [51:03] That policy is developed by our House of Delegates, which is made up of 600 members from [51:08] across this country, every state in the union, red states and blue states. [51:13] So first, we have to have policy. [51:16] Then, if we are requested to file an amicus, we have to determine that we have something [51:22] unique to offer the court in assisting it in making its decision. [51:27] When we file an amicus, then we are doing so based on the existing policy. [51:32] We don't line them up based on liberal or conservative. [51:35] It seems like, whether you are intending to or not, the net result is the fact that your [51:40] work product is very much liberal leaning, if not progressively imposing or working toward [51:50] those advances. [51:51] It's not at all any sort of nonpartisan or, in a way, a gatekeeper of making sure that the [51:58] legal profession is respected and protected. [52:02] Our policies are the issues that are raised by our members. [52:08] Anyone within the House of Delegates can raise an issue, can speak to and debate an issue, [52:14] and bring resolutions. [52:16] So when we decide... [52:17] Do you think transgender surgery for minors is a nonpartisan issue? [52:23] The ABA developed policy on that issue and therefore, going through that process... [52:28] That is one issue where I think there is a, it crosses, maybe not here in Congress, but [52:36] the American people are very much against transgender surgeries for minors. [52:40] Yet the ABA is supportive of that. [52:44] Our policy is developed by our House of Delegates with those members from each and every state, [52:49] sir. [52:50] It doesn't concern you that you're that far off from the American people? [52:54] The policy that is developed in our House of Delegates is done through a very deliberative [52:59] process. [53:01] And when those issues come up and are voted on, that is what sets our policy. [53:05] Okay. [53:06] The ABA supported the disbarment of a number of lawyers who defended President Trump. [53:11] Yet we had other lawyers who actually campaigned in going after the President, kind of invented [53:17] new and novel legal parameters to create a prosecution case against him. [53:24] We've seen no disciplinary action taken against those individuals. [53:28] We haven't seen the American Bar Association support the disbarring of them. [53:33] You know, again, we're seeing kind of like a left-leaning approach by the ABA. [53:41] I'm not aware of what you're speaking about in terms of disbarring lawyers. [53:46] The ABA is an association. [53:48] We are not, we do not actually control the barring of lawyers. [53:53] No, but you put out statements supporting it. [53:56] I'm not aware of any statements that support disbarring particular lawyers. [54:04] Okay. [54:05] Mr. Smith, you've done some work and study on this. [54:08] The ABA, in a sense, acts as a gatekeeper. [54:10] Yes, there's a little bit of a divide between the Accreditation Council, but, you know, there's [54:16] a lot of overlap there as well as far as how the members of that council are selected. [54:20] Could you speak to that and, really, should we have one organization kind of being the [54:24] gatekeeper or should the Department of Ed look at multiple institutions or would it [54:29] be better to lift to the states? [54:30] Yeah. [54:31] Thank you for that question, Congressman. [54:32] The Department of Education absolutely should authorize more law school accreditors than one [54:37] monopolistic entity. [54:38] Now, when it comes to the council of the ABA's section of legal education, there is a lot of [54:43] overlap. [54:44] The council would not exist without the ABA. [54:47] In order to be a member of the council, you first have to be a member of the ABA, except [54:51] for a few public members. [54:53] The officers of the ABA's section of legal education and admissions to the bar automatically [54:58] are members of the council, the accrediting entity. [55:01] And so, as I mentioned in my opening statement, there is a lot of overlap between the big ABA [55:06] and the council that does the accrediting. [55:08] So, sitting here and saying, oh, there's no overlap, I can't speak to that, it's probably [55:12] not exactly accurate. [55:13] There is more overlap than I think that statement reflects. [55:15] The gentleman's time has expired. [55:17] Now, recognize ranking member Simon for five minutes for the purpose of asking questions. [55:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank you to our witnesses. [55:26] Today, the task force has decided to hold yet another hearing on diversity and the horrors [55:33] of inclusion, the horrors of equity. [55:38] After we had this same hearing last week, we also know that the Doge subcommittee just had [55:44] a hearing on this exact topic just yesterday. [55:47] And I think the American people deserve to know why the majority is so concerned about inclusion [55:54] and equity, that we need to have back-to-back hearings on the issue. [56:01] At last week's task force meeting, each witness testified in no uncertain terms that the so-called [56:08] DI crisis are the reasons for Americans' families suffering, paying more for groceries and gas under the current administration's policies. [56:20] They were all very clear about that. [56:22] This is why the task force is dead set on ignoring the challenges of what's affecting Americans who are hurting the most. [56:34] I know in my state, in my district, one of the largest states in the country, I think the chairman's state is also actually the largest. [56:43] We have real issues in both of our states. [56:46] In my district alone, there's over a thousand veterans that are sleeping on the street. [56:51] I don't care what party you belong to, we know that that is wrong. [56:54] I know that in my colleagues' district, Texas has led the nation in hunger, the nation in hunger over the past two years, [57:06] with more than five million Texans unable to afford enough to eat. [57:12] In the Dallas area alone, gas prices have risen by almost a dollar over the past year. [57:20] From Texas to California, our constituents are worried about how they're going to pay for gas and groceries [57:26] and health care and are worried about how they're going to pick up their kids from the daycare that they can't afford [57:31] and use that gas and hustle it to get to work the same day. [57:35] But we're here today, here, hours. [57:39] People flew in. [57:40] We're here to talk about law school accreditation. [57:43] And today's hearing is not also about restoring merit to the law school accreditation process. [57:50] We know that. [57:51] Mr. Smith, I gave you a quick hint in my opening statement, [57:56] but do you know how many people applied to ABA-accredited law schools last academic year? [58:02] Mr. Smith, I would imagine the majority of applicants applied to ABA-accredited law schools [58:07] because historically, the ABA has been the only law school accreditor, [58:11] and historically, states have required... [58:14] My time is so limited. [58:15] My time is so limited. [58:16] It's about 77,000 people. [58:17] Do you know... [58:19] 77,000. [58:20] Remember that number. [58:21] Do you know what the percentage of the American population that is? [58:25] I do not, Congresswoman. [58:27] It's about .02 percent. [58:30] Mr. Smith, do you know the percentage of law school applicants that are people of color, [58:35] of that 77,000? [58:36] The process, Congresswoman, should be open equally to all. [58:40] I'll reclaim my time. [58:41] I will claim my time. [58:42] It's important to know, because we're talking about de-diversifying, challenging inclusion, [58:51] and challenging equity. [58:53] Half of the law school applications for the last academic year were people of color. [58:58] So do you know what percentage of the American population that is? [59:02] Congresswoman... [59:03] I'll answer it. [59:07] .01 percent. [59:09] .01 percent. [59:11] So let's bring this issue home. [59:14] We're here at a hearing on law school accreditation, and the Republicans have invited the ABA president, [59:23] and thank you for your presence today, knowing, knowing, they've had to know that her position [59:30] doesn't play a role in law school accreditation. [59:33] Maybe the majority just made an honest mistake, but I'm still trying to figure out what we're doing here. [59:42] So why has President Trump consistently attacked the legal profession since he's returned to office? [59:49] We know why. [59:50] This is an unprecedented executive order spree that we have seen retaliating against the specific lawyers and law firms. [1:00:00] I yield back. [1:00:02] Thank you, Ranking Member Simon. [1:00:07] And I now yield five minutes to Mr. Jack from Georgia. [1:00:11] Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:00:12] I appreciate you convening this task force today. [1:00:15] And I myself, as well as many of my constituents who are watching, reached out to let me know how impressed they were with your line of questioning. [1:00:23] So with that having been said, I'd like to yield the remainder of my time to our distinguished chairman, Mr. Gill. [1:00:29] Well, thank you. [1:00:33] I appreciate that. [1:00:36] Ms. Benke, let's pick up where we left off before. [1:00:39] The mission statement on the ABA's website states that are in legal profession is enhanced when judges resemble the cultural groups that make up American society. [1:00:52] How many Supreme Court justices have we had in American history? [1:00:55] I could not tell you over the... [1:00:58] About 116. [1:00:59] Do you know of those 116, how many of them have been transgender? [1:01:06] I have no idea. [1:01:09] Do you think there might have been one? [1:01:11] I have no idea. [1:01:12] Is it fair to say that there have been no transgender Supreme Court justices in American history? [1:01:16] I honestly have no idea. [1:01:18] You don't know? [1:01:19] I have no idea. [1:01:20] You study the law, don't you? [1:01:22] We do not study the personal attributes of individual justices. [1:01:28] Is there a Supreme Court justice in American history that you think might have been transgender? [1:01:33] I have no idea. [1:01:34] You have no idea? [1:01:36] Well, I think most people can assume that there haven't been any transgender Supreme Court justices. [1:01:42] I hope that we can agree at least on that basis. [1:01:47] Would that be okay to proceed under that assumption? [1:01:51] Okay. [1:01:52] I appreciate that. [1:01:55] So, transgenders haven't been represented on the Supreme Court. [1:01:58] Do you think that it's important that the next Supreme Court justice be transgender? [1:02:03] The ABA does not subscribe to any particular quotas. [1:02:07] I'm not asking about a quota. [1:02:09] I'm asking about representation, diversity, equity, and inclusion. [1:02:13] The ABA supports diversity in all of its forms. [1:02:16] Have transgenders been included on the U.S. Supreme Court? [1:02:20] The ABA supports the full spectrum of diversity. [1:02:24] Do you think that it's a problem that the transgender community has never had representation on the U.S. Supreme Court? [1:02:29] The ABA believes in diversity, equity, and inclusion. [1:02:34] And I'm asking you about diversity, equity, and inclusion. [1:02:37] I'm asking you about inclusion of the transgender community. [1:02:40] We believe that people ought to bring their entire self to whatever role they're serving. [1:02:47] You're refusing to answer my question. [1:02:49] Do you think that it's important that we have a transgender Supreme Court justice? [1:02:52] I believe that it's important. [1:02:53] In order to include that community. [1:02:55] I believe that it is always important, the ABA believes that it is always important to support and encourage diversity. [1:03:02] So we should have a transgender Supreme Court justice? [1:03:05] Diversity has many forms and we believe that each person. [1:03:09] Do you think that you're not answering in a straightforward way? [1:03:11] Do you think that's because of your own implicit bias? [1:03:13] I believe that I'm trying to explain that the ABA does not set quotas and does not believe- [1:03:19] Do you have implicit transphobia? [1:03:21] The ABA believes that diversity in all of its forms is important and helps the profession more globally. [1:03:29] Okay. [1:03:30] We're going to move on. [1:03:31] Should Americans be judged by the color of their skin or the content of their character? [1:03:35] Discrimination is never appropriate, sir. [1:03:39] So do you agree that Americans should be judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin? [1:03:46] Yes, I would agree. [1:03:47] You agree with that? [1:03:48] Should a law school consider an applicant's race when making admissions decisions? [1:03:53] The Supreme Court has indicated that- [1:03:55] I'm asking you if they should. [1:03:56] It's a normative question. [1:03:59] Discrimination is never appropriate and- [1:04:03] So is it your testimony that law schools should not consider applicants race when making admissions decisions? [1:04:09] The Supreme Court has said that you may not take race into account. [1:04:12] So you don't believe that race should have any role, yes or no, in a law school's admissions decisions? [1:04:19] Is that the position of the ABA? [1:04:21] The ABA is not responsible for admissions- [1:04:24] I didn't say it was. [1:04:25] I'm asking you if you believe and if it's the position of the ABA that race should not be a factor at all in a law school's admissions decisions. [1:04:35] The ABA takes compliance with the law seriously- [1:04:38] I didn't ask you that. [1:04:39] I asked- it's a really simple question. [1:04:41] I'm asking you should- let me just ask you in your own personal capacity, should race be a factor in law school admissions decisions? [1:04:49] The question is a yes or no question. [1:04:51] I am here in my capacity- [1:04:52] Yes or no, should race be a factor in law school admissions decisions? [1:04:56] I am here in my capacity- [1:04:57] Because according to the ABA, it should. [1:05:00] The ABA has said explicitly that they have a long history of supporting consideration of race in law school admissions. [1:05:10] Is that your testimony that law schools should continue taking into account race? [1:05:15] The Supreme Court indicated that diversity is a laudable goal and the ABA supports diversity in all of its courts. [1:05:21] The Supreme Court you have is an option of checking that. [1:05:23] It's very bipartisan for you. [1:05:24] You ought to be able to answer this in a very straightforward way. [1:05:25] And with that, the time is up. [1:05:26] I have three UC's requests. [1:05:29] Go for it. [1:05:30] Thank you. [1:05:31] I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record a July 2026 article from Kerner News North Texas [1:05:38] Families and the summer food programs they rely on are feeling the sting of inflation. Without [1:05:44] objection. All right and we're going to skip closing because we've got votes now so in closing [1:05:50] I want to thank the witnesses once again for their testimony today and appreciate it. Thank you all for coming.