A national advocacy organization, Defending Education, has filed a formal public comment with the American Bar Association (ABA), urging the organization to eliminate a controversial law school curriculum requirement known as Standard 303(c). This standard forces all ABA-accredited law schools to provide student instruction on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism at least twice during their legal education.

Concerns Over Ideological Instruction

Defending Education argued that Standard 303(c) is fundamentally flawed, functioning as a vehicle for mandated ideological instruction. The group stated that the rule allows a private trade association to weaponize its federal accreditation power to compel specific, viewpoint-heavy coursework. Because law schools must maintain ABA accreditation for their graduates to take the bar exam and qualify for federal financial aid, schools face immense pressure to comply.

The organization highlighted how the mandate has played out in real-world classrooms. For instance, the UC Berkeley School of Law requires a minimum of two units in “race-and-law” courses that focus on how legal institutions are shaped by systemic inequality. Similarly, Rutgers Law School enforces a “Racial Equity Requirement” as a condition for graduation. Defending Education also pointed to a mandatory orientation session for first-year law students at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, which featured a worksheet asking students to identify their own personal “racist” beliefs—an exercise the university confirmed was used to fulfill the ABA’s requirement.

Call for Transparency and Discretion

While Defending Education welcomed the proposed repeal, the group emphasized that dropping the rule is only half the battle. The organization expressed deep concern that the ABA will simply repackage the same race-based or ideologically prescriptive frameworks under the guise of the new Standard 302 communication rule. To prevent this, the comment urged the ABA to leave the exact substance and framing of any communication training entirely up to the discretion of individual law schools. The group also demanded that the ABA publish the exact text of any future revisions to Standard 302 for a completely separate public notice-and-comment period before trying to adopt it, ensuring full transparency for the public and the legal community.

Original reporting: Tampa Free Press — read the source article.