<p>The ABA recently enacted a standard that requires affirmative action, ie. either preferences or costly recruiting programs, despite laws barring the former.</p>
<p>From the Volokh Conspiracy, a respected conservative/libertarian law blog put on by professors:
The enacted standard states that "a law school may use race and ethnicity in its admissions process to promote equal opportunity and diversity. Through its admissions policies and practices, a law school shall take concrete actions to enroll a diverse student body." Moreover, "the commitment to providing full educational opportunities for members of underrepresented groups typically includes a special concern [read, racial preferences] for determining the potential of these applicants through the admission process." And, just in case the law gets in the way of preferences, "[t]he requirements of a constitutional provision or statute that purports to prohibit consideration of gender, race, ethnicity or national origin in admissions or employment decisions is not a justification for a schools non-compliance with Standard 211." [This particular language was not part of the original ABA proposal, but was added in January with the obvious intent of requiring law schools in states that ban preferences to use them anyway.] And, finally, to see whether the standard is met, the ABA will look at "the totality of the law schools actions and the results achieved."</p>
<p>For the full post see:
<a href="http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_02_12-2006_02_18.shtml#1139927248%5B/url%5D">http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2006_02_12-2006_02_18.shtml#1139927248</a>
The author of the post first wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal on the subject. This isn't some random politico blogging up bull.</p>
<p>In short, the ABA is (ab)using its rent-seeking monopoly to enforce its ideology.</p>