In 2022, the American Bar Association (ABA) amended its accreditation standards, introducing new requirements for legal education. Revised Standards 302 and 303 and their accompanying interpretations collectively emphasize a new responsibility of law schools: to instill in law students a fiduciary mindset that champions a justice system promoting equal access while actively combating bias, discrimination, and racism.
Standard 303, covering law-school curriculum, underwent several important changes. Standard 303(b) was amended to emphasize the importance of helping students develop a professional identity, alongside including opportunities to engage in clinics, field placements, and pro-bono legal services. The ABA also added a new subsection (c) to Standard 303, mandating that law schools incorporate education on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism at the commencement or at some other time during their program of legal education.Footnote1 These revised standards make diversity, equity, and inclusion more than a moral imperative or a political necessity in legal education—DEI is now a necessary institutional requirement for law schools seeking to get or maintain accreditation.
To help facilitate the implementation of these requirements, the ABA also issued new interpretations, including Interpretation 303-5, which highlights the “special obligations” of lawyers to “their clients and society,” including the development of professional identity through “intentional exploration of the values, guiding principles, and well-being practices” that are essential to successful legal practice.” Interpretation 303-5 also states that the development of this professional identity should involve “reflection and growth over time,” and so students should be given “frequent opportunities for such development during each year of law school and in a variety of courses and co-curricular and professional development activities.” Interpretation 303-6 emphasizes the responsibility and professional obligation of lawyers to promote “a justice system that provides equal access and eliminates bias, discrimination, and racism” and includes cross-cultural competence as important to the attainment of this goal. Moreover, Interpretation 303-7 clarifies that the requirements of subsection (c) can be satisfied through activities during orientation, lectures, “courses incorporating these topics,” and other suitable educational means.Footnote2 Furthermore, Interpretation 302-1 lists cultural competency as one of the professional skills included in Standard 302(d).Footnote3
The methods by which law schools can achieve these new standards have, for the most part, intentionally been left to the discretion of individual institutions.Footnote4 This presents a significant opportunity for academic law librarians to drive transformative change within their institutions and the broader legal education sphere with respect to promoting principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
This special issue of the Legal Reference Services Quarterly is the outcome of the symposium titled DEI and the Law Librarian, held on March 6, 2023, at the University of San Diego School of Law’s Legal Research Center. The symposium featured 17 papers, and this special issue includes 14 of those articles. The articles in this collection explore various ways in which law librarians can contribute to the advancement of DEI principles within legal education programs at different institutions, focusing in particular on opportunities in instruction, services, and collaborative spaces.
This compilation begins with Nicole Dyszlewski’s piece, “Law Librarians Leading Law Schools through Transformative Change: Integrating Doctrine and Diversity.” Dyszlewski highlights how professional competency standards of librarianship, including information retrieval, organization, presentation to diverse audiences, collaborative relationship building, and innovative problem solving,Footnote5 position academic law librarians to be major players in furthering the DEIB missions at their law schoolsFootnote6. Academic law librarians’ commitment to social justice work, evidenced by things like critical librarianship, further underscores their suitability for the task of promoting DEIB efforts within their law schools. Dyszlewski offers examples of librarians who have embraced these roles, including her own involvement on the Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Planning Committee at Roger Williams University School of Law, which served as a catalyst for her collaborative journey with colleagues from other institutions to create the groundbreaking publication and speaker series, Integrating Doctrine and Diversity: Inclusion and Equity in the Law School Classroom.Footnote7 She also presents compelling case studies of other librarians doing DEIB work at their institutions, culminating with a passionate call to action for academic librarians to embrace and champion DEIB initiatives at their home institutions. Dyszlewski’s article sets the stage for librarians to seek out and embrace opportunities to participate in and lead efforts to help their respective institutions meet the new requirements of ABA Standards 302 and 303.
The next four articles address how librarians can incorporate principles of DEI into the classes they teach, aligning with the objectives of ABA Standard 303(c), which Interpretation 303-7 specifies can be met through lectures or coursework. In “Planting Seeds: Incorporating DEIA Into an FCIL Legal Research Course,” Michael McArthur and Julie M. Wooldridge describe how they set out to incorporate principles of DEIA into a first-year research class they co-teach at the J. Michael Goodson Law Library, Duke University School of Law.Footnote8 They recognize that law librarians have already started integrating DEIA into their instruction by including discussions on how to recognize and avoid bias in legal language and reasoning, using diverse populations in fact patterns and examples, and through exposing students to critical legal research (CLR). McArthur’s and Wooldridge’s objective was to integrate these approaches into their own course. They show how they were able to introduce students to the concept of algorithmic bias, as well as to the influence of power imbalances and systemic inequities on international law and research. Going back to the title of their article, they hope the work conducted in their class will plant the seeds of critical thinking that forms the core of critical legal research into their students.
In “Critical Legal Research, Artificial Intelligence, and Systemic Racism: Teaching With Jim Crow Text-Mining,” Ellie Campbell reflects on her own prior efforts to integrate critical legal research into her classes. Building on her prior work, she goes a step further by introducing a text-mining project called On the Books: Jim Crow and the Algorithms of Resistance (shortened here to OTB), which was developed by the libraries at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. The OTB project aimed to uncover racially discriminatory laws enacted in that state during the Jim Crow era. By having her students work with the OTB database, Campbell facilitated their understanding of the inherent ideological underpinnings within existing information structures. Whether it was a caselaw database, the West Key Number system, or the search algorithms employed by Westlaw and Lexis, she helped her students recognize the presence of ideology. Additionally, Campbell was able to hold discussions on how little knowledge we possess about the functioning of algorithms owned by proprietary databases. This approach enabled her to emphasize the importance of approaching research tools with a critical mindset.
In “Adapting Legal Research for a First-Generation Audience,” Thomas Sneed recounts his experience of modifying his business and tax-law research class to better engage with first-generation students as part of Washburn University’s First-Generation Class Redesign program for faculty. He describes the redesign process as one that includes critical self-reflection, taking concrete steps to establish a positive class climate early on, and implementing pedagogical changes such as including more flexible assessment methods and incorporating principles of universal design. Furthermore, he underscores the importance of scholarly contributions in this domain, both from within and outside the realm of law librarian scholarship. Sneed’s article holds significant value as it brings to mind the proverb, “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” For instance, he acknowledges that, while crucial self-reflection ideally should occur before the course commences, he highlights the positive outcomes he achieved by just reflecting during the course while preparing for the upcoming week. He demonstrates that by making a few manageable changes, discrete positive results can be observed in class.
Rounding out this set of articles dealing with instruction, Mari Cheney explores the distinct challenges neurodivergent learners face in law school. In “A More Inclusive Classroom: Considerations for the Legal Research Professor Teaching Neurodivergent Students,” she offers guidance for instructors to better support these students through the establishment of a flexible, predictable, and organized classroom environment. Cheney highlights the role of universal design, which can benefit neurodivergent students but also can improve the learning experience for all students. She also addresses the significance of cross-cultural competence emphasized in Interpretation 303-6, noting the importance of training law students to foster a justice system that ensures equal access, eliminates bias, discrimination, and racism in the law. Cheney posits that not only is it crucial for neurodivergent clients to be able to find neurodivergent lawyers who can effectively represent them, but she also argues that the legal profession as a whole will be enriched through the collaboration of neurotypical and neurodivergent students.
Moving on to the crucial question of how to actually measure how well an instructor has incorporated diversity within their instructional practices, we have Sarah Ryan’s piece, “From Humble Standpoint to Research and Back: Measuring, Assessing, and Improving How We Teach Diversity.” She starts off with a literature review, showing that the interest in incorporating diversity into curricula has existed for decades within legal academia, albeit with a different approach. She notes the shift from a “Whiteness-centered” approach to one grounded in anti-oppressive practice (AOP) theory, which prioritizes attention on power structures and amplifies the experiences of those resisting oppression, while embracing cultural humility. Ryan then revisits her involvement working on a student-led self-study that aimed to evaluate diversity in the curriculum of a public-affairs graduate program at a northeastern university. Through this experience, she candidly reflects on how her identity as a White person hindered her from making essential connections regarding systemic oppression, both with respect to the findings of the study and also in the way in which it was administered and run. The critical self-reflection exhibited in her article emphasizes the points she makes, underscoring the importance of such introspection in safeguarding the voices of the oppressed, as advocated by AOP theory.
The next two articles address accessibility and how universal design can help libraries go beyond simply meeting legal requirements and instead make spaces genuinely inclusive. In “Moving Beyond the Basics of the ADA and Section 504: Opportunities for Equitable and Inclusive Access to Law Libraries, Collections, and Services,” Jessica de Perio Wittman urges librarians to make their spaces, collections, programs, and services truly accessible to disabled users. She first provides an overview of how the effectiveness of both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 was hobbled by multiple factors, including a lack of enforcement guidelines, use of a cost-benefit analysis that often lets institutions off the hook from having to provide true accessibility, and the marginalized voices of those with disabilities. De Perio Wittman then delves into what proactive measures librarians can adopt to ensure their institutions adhere to the “equality of opportunity for qualified individuals with disabilities” mandate as set out by ABA Standard 206. Those measures include incorporating principles of universal design into library planning and making sure that digital spaces receive as much attention as the physical ones. She also provides librarians with concrete steps they can take to “empower” library users by ensuring that their narratives are heard. De Perio Wittman’s article challenges librarians to reflect on the uncomfortable reality that, while they may generally view their institutions as striving to be more inclusive, they themselves engage in that cost-benefit analysis that prevents the possibility of a truly accessible learning environment for all users. Only by recognizing and facing this reality can true change come about.
Universal design is invoked in Cheney’s and de Perio Wittman’s articles, but Matt Timko embraces it full on in his article, “Best of Both Worlds: Incorporating Universal Design and DEI Principles Through a Singular Approach.” Timko first provides a very thorough description of the seven principles of universal design articulated by the Center of Universal Design at North Carolina State University. He then posits that efforts to incorporate principles of universal design and DEI in libraries is a singular process because the two theories go hand-in-hand. Furthermore, libraries provide an ideal setting for a holistic approach to integrating the two. Using open educational resources (OER) as an example, he outlines how they achieve the goals of universal design, such as equitable use and flexibility in use, while at the same time furthering the goals of DEI, such as affording scholars of diverse backgrounds an opportunity to have their work published and disseminated to a wider audience than they could expect through traditional law reviews. Timko also addresses how there is a similar opportunity for universal design and DEI to work in tandem to make physical library environments and collections more accessible to users.
In the interest of fostering a sense of inclusion and belonging for the individuals who enter their libraries, in “What’s in a Name: How Terminology Affects the Relationships between Libraries, Librarians, Users, and Principles of Inclusivity,” Kerri-Ann Rowe calls on librarians to engage in their own self-reflection and to be mindful of the terminology they use when referring to individuals seeking assistance in their libraries. Rowe asserts that the language employed by librarians can shape their perceptions of library users; however, she emphasizes that these perceptions can be overcome when librarians actively recognize and acknowledge the impact of such language on their interactions with people seeking library services. While Rowe presents a thoughtful analysis of the positive and negative aspects associated with common terms used to describe library users, including the term “user,” she refrains from making specific recommendations regarding terminology librarians should adopt. Instead, she posits that the cognitive effort involved in selecting appropriate terms fosters self-reflection among librarians, enabling them to better understand how their choice of language affects interactions. By engaging in this cognitive work, librarians can create a more inclusive and welcoming experience for library users.
In “Supporting Law School DEI Initiatives through Library Guides: Building a Better Experience for Implementing an Anti-Racist 1L Curriculum,” Judith Simms addresses how librarians can assist in their law school’s efforts to implement the modifications made to Standard 303, urging them to create research guides that provide resources for those involved in making the curricular changes. Simms begins by discussing strategies to enhance traffic and usage of these guides, and then paints a picture of the ideal guide, one which includes both pedagogical resources that can help instructors to incorporate the curricular changes outlined in the modified Standard 303(c) in addition to training resources that can help instructors manage classes in which they are holding sensitive conversations. Moreover, she recommends that these guides include mental health resources that can provide support to faculty, staff, and students who are doing the difficult and often trauma-inducing work in these classes. Taking her own advice to heart, she urges against simply providing a list of links and instead points to examples of guides at institutions that effectively embody the principles she articulates, along with annotations and a discussion of what they have done.
The next article gives us a view of how librarians can leverage their position as advisors to student-run journals to help student editors attain their own goals of incorporating diversity in their ranks. In “Pilots for Fraught Channels: How Law Librarians Can Help Law Reviews Navigate Their DEI Journeys,” Beau Steenken shares his experience collaborating with student-run law journals at the University of Kentucky J. David Rosenberg College of Law in an effort to enhance DEI within their organizations. He starts off by giving the reasons why law librarians should help journals increase diversity within their ranks, highlighting that such efforts contribute to increasing diversity and equity within the legal profession itself, as being on a law review often serves as a gateway to prestigious clerkships or positions at top law firms. Second, because law journals play a significant role in shaping national discourse through scholarship, fostering inclusivity within journals will have the broader impact of increasing representation of authors with diverse backgrounds. Last, fostering inclusivity within law journals will have the effect of creating more inclusive environments within their institutions. This, in turn, equips law students with the mindset and tools they need to champion inclusivity in their future legal professions. Steenken proceeds to outline practical suggestions for increasing inclusivity and diversity, which include using evidence-based rubrics in the selection process for write-on candidates, providing unconscious or implicit bias training for board members, and actively working to broaden the pool of applicants from diverse backgrounds to join the journals. Other strategies he discusses involve establishing pipeline programs by fostering relationships with affinity student organizations, offering mentorship opportunities, and encouraging journals to openly engage with DEI issues.
Steenken’s emphasis on diversifying authorship in law reviews dovetails nicely with the next article in this issue by Sue Silverman titled, “Examining the Society in Which We Are Educated: Applying Critical Approaches to International Law Research.” Silverman underscores the glaring lack of diversity in international law scholarship, both in terms of authorship and topics, and she highlights how Third World approaches to International Law (TWAIL) scholarship can interrogate and challenge the prevailing epistemological bases. Silverman then delves into the potential of critical pedagogy and critical information literacy, which can be used by legal-research instructors to help incorporate TWAIL scholarship into foreign, comparative, and international law courses. The article finishes up with an exploration of how Paul Callister’s revered taxonomy for legal-research instruction can be used to equip students with the skills to approach foreign and international law research in a critical and inclusive manner.
Thus far, the articles in this special issue have explored ways in which librarians can advance DEI within legal education and the legal profession. The next two articles shift the spotlight onto the profession of librarianship itself. In “Democratizing Law Librarianship: Reducing Barriers to Entry through Alternative Pathways to the Profession and Increased Support to Students; A Call to Action, Teresa M. Miguel-Stearns and Cassandra Laskowski directly address the pressing need to increase diversity within the ranks of law librarianship itself. After identifying the root causes for this lack of diversity, which also account for the diminishing number of overall applicants to law-library positions in general, they describe the work underway at the University of Arizona, which is forging ahead with possible solutions that include degrees such as the bachelor of arts in law or the master of legal studies, which can stand in for a JD (recognized as a barrier to diverse applicant pools); dual-degree programs that can shorten the amount of time required to obtain the credentials needed for a law librarian position; and a fellowship program that provides funding and mentor opportunities for fellows. The authors end their article with a call to action for other libraries across the nation to partner with them and create pipelines to the profession through their national Law Library Fellows Program.
Some articles resist easy summarization, and “An Autoethnographic Exploration of Fatness in Law Librarianship” by Tanya M. Johnson is one such piece. Not because the writing is overly complex or the concepts expressed difficult to grasp; on the contrary, Johnson presents her thoughts with sharp clarity. It is the raw and compelling manner in which she conveys those thoughts that demands firsthand engagement. Johnson’s article discusses the stereotypes, negative assumptions, micro-aggressions, and outright hostility that fat people face. Whether these behaviors are intentional or not, they invariably impact the professional lives and mental well-being of those affected. Concluding with actionable steps for individuals, professionals, and supporting library organizations, Johnson’s paper serves as a clarion call urging librarians to elevate their and expand standards embracing DEI.
This collection of articles challenges librarians to actively engage in their law schools’ efforts to meet the updated mandates set forth in the revised ABA standards. Dyszlweski, in her article, underscores that librarians have the essential leadership skills, core competencies, deep interest, and steadfast passion to effectively collaborate on this crucial initiative with key stakeholders in their institutions and the broader legal community. While the articles in this compilation cover a wide range of topics, they all in some way testify to the truth of both Dyszlewski’s belief in our ambition, as well as our abilities. Hopefully, this compilation will not only inspire librarians but also equip them with the insights to critically evaluate their organizations and implement necessary changes, to ensure not just accessibility but true inclusivity.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Judith Lihosit
Judith Lihosit is Assistant Dean, Director of the Legal Research Center, and Professor of Law, Katherine M. & George M. Pardee, Jr. Legal Research Center, University of San Diego School of Law.
Notes
1 Section of Legal Educ. and Admissions to the Bar, Am. Bar. Ass’n, ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, 2022-2023, § 303 at 18 (2022), www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/standards/2022-2023/2022-2023-standards-and-rules-of-procedure.pdf. See also Neil W. Hamilton & Louis D. Bilionis, Revised ABA Standard 303(b) and (c) and the Formation of a Lawyer’s Professional Identity, Part 1: Understanding the New Requirements, NALP Bulletin+ (May 2022), www.nalp.org/page.cfm?name=revised-aba-standards-part-1&print=Y.
2 Id.
3 Section of Legal Educ. and Admissions to the Bar, Am. Bar. Ass’n, ABA Standards and Rules of Procedure for Approval of Law Schools, 2022-2023, § Interpretation 302(d) at 17 (2022), www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/standards/2023-2024/23-24-standards-ch3.pdf
4 Statement by Bill Adams, Managing Director of ABA Accreditation and Legal Education, on Misleading Media Reports of Proposed Changes to Law School Standards (Oct. 2021), www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_education_and_admissions_to_the_bar/2021/legal-ed-statement-re-media-reports-on-206-and-303.pdf.
5 See Am. Ass’n of L. Librs., AALL Body of Knowledge, https://www.aallnet.org/education-training/bok/; Am. Libr. Ass’n, ALA’ Core Competencies of Librarianship, /www.ala.org/educationcareers/sites/ala.org.educationcareers/files/content/careers/corecomp/corecompetences/finalcorecompstat09.pdf; Ass’n of Coll. & Rsch. Librs., Standards for Libraries in Higher Education, www.ala.org/acrl/standards/standardslibraries.
6 DEIB here stands for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging.
7 Integrating Doctrine and Diversity: Inclusion and Equity in the Law School Classroom (Nicole P. Dyszlewski, Raquel J. Gabriel, Suzaznne Harrington-Steppen, Anna Rusell, & Genevieve B. Tung 2021).
7 Integrating Doctrine and Diversity: Inclusion and Equity in the Law School Classroom (Nicole P. Dyszlewski, Raquel J. Gabriel, Suzaznne Harrington-Steppen, Anna Rusell, & Genevieve B. Tung 2021).
DEIA here stands for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility.