DEI at Law Schools Could Bring Down America

By Tunku Varadarajan

Wall Street Journal

March 28, 2023 6:50 pm ET



After the Stanford episode, Ilya Shapiro sounds a warning: The threat to ‘dismantle existing structures’ is an idle one in English class. But in legal education it targets individual rights and equal treatment under the Constitution.


Falls Church, Va.


Wokeness, or what used to be called political correctness, once seemed merely harebrained, the product of shallow ideas and immature passion. The common view was that undergraduates would outgrow it once they left campus and faced the rigors of the real world.


You seldom hear that anymore, as those ideas have run amok in culture- and economy-defining institutions ranging from news organizations and local governments to professional societies and corporate boardrooms. But Ilya Shapiro thinks we’re not alarmed enough about their influence in one important corner of academia: law schools. The professional ideologues who wield administrative authority on American college campuses want nothing less than to “change the American constitutional system,” Mr. Shapiro says. They pose a grave long-term threat to “the rule of law and inalienable rights, and even concepts like equal treatment under the law.”


Mr. Shapiro, 45, is director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. Hunkered down in the study of his Virginia home, he’s working on a book, “Canceling Justice: The Illiberal Takeover of Legal Education,” that seeks to lay bare the process by which bureaucrats appointed to promote “diversity, equity and inclusion” on campus have “perverted our system of legal education.”


A prime example was in the news as we spoke. Stanford’s Federalist Society chapter had invited Judge Kyle Duncan of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to speak on campus. Confronted by a vicious leftist student mob, he asked administrators to intervene. Tirien Steinbach, the law school’s associate dean for DEI, arose to deliver prepared remarks, which concluded: “I look out and I don’t ask, ‘What’s going on here?’ I look out and I say, ‘I’m glad this is going on here.’ ”


Mr. Shapiro experienced a different kind of DEI humiliation in January 2022. He was concluding his tenure as a vice president of the Cato Institute and due to start a new job as executive director of the Center for the Constitution at Georgetown’s law school. Then Justice Stephen Breyer announced he would retire. Mr. Shapiro tweeted that Judge Sri Srinivasan was the “objectively best pick” for the vacancy but President Biden had already disqualified him on the basis of race and sex. Mr. Shapiro opined that Judge Srinivasan “alas doesn’t fit into the intersectional hierarchy so we’ll get lesser black woman.”


The tweet, which Mr. Shapiro describes as “inartfully phrased,” prompted an inquisition at Georgetown. The university suspended him with pay while its Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity and Affirmative Action conducted a four-month investigation into his fitness for the job. In June the office issued a report exonerating him—but on a technicality with an unsubtle chilling effect.


Since Mr. Shapiro wasn’t yet on Georgetown’s payroll, the report found, the university lacked jurisdiction over his speech. But if he “were to make another, similar or more serious remark as a Georgetown employee, a hostile environment based on race, gender, and sex likely would be created.” In fact, Mr. Shapiro wrote in these pages, “it is the Georgetown administrators who have created a hostile work environment for me.” He quit and returned to the think-tank world.


If Mr. Shapiro were an English professor, one might put this down as a workplace dispute of marginal importance. But he has a point when he says law schools are different. They train “future lawyers and politicians and judges, and the gatekeepers to our institutions, to the rules of the game.” That game has the highest of stakes: “the rule of law, upon which American prosperity and liberty and equality sit.”


An illiberal takeover of medical schools, Mr. Shapiro quips, might be more “immediately dangerous, in the sense that you don’t have the best doctors treating people.” But some of the students who raged against Judge Duncan “are people who, in 20 years, are going to be joining the federal bench.” Sooner than that, “they’ll be occupying influential positions in state and federal government, bringing legal cases, becoming state legislators in some cases, or occupying the general counsel’s offices of Fortune 500 companies and the partnership ranks of big firms.”


Already, Mr. Shapiro says, partners at law firms “cower in fear of their associates, who question their firm’s representation of certain types of client and demand that statements be made by law firms after Supreme Court decisions and other developments in the political world.” A friend of his was a partner in the Houston office of a large global law firm. “She’s pro-life,” he says, declining to name the lawyer or the firm. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, various firm leaders asked her to handle some pro bono clients advancing pro-choice arguments. “She said she was too busy and didn’t make a stink over it,” Mr. Shapiro says. “Eventually, the managing partner of the Houston office said, ‘Well, I guess you’re pro-life. What’s the point of having a female partner who’s pro-life?’ ” She now practices independently.


Similar cases have been recounted in these pages. Former Solicitor General Paul Clement and Erin Murphy, then partners at Kirkland & Ellis, won a landmark Second Amendment victory last year at the Supreme Court. The firm responded by ordering them to drop the clients or resign; they walked. Hogan Lovells fired Robin Keller for saying that she agreed with the justices’ decision overturning Roe during an online conference call advertised as a “safe space” for female employees.


Much of this seems self-defeating. Would you hire an attorney who is made to feel “unsafe” by a Supreme Court decision? Wouldn’t a lawyer who heckled a judge in court go to jail for contempt? Maybe there’s still something to the idea that woke students are in for a shock after graduation.

“Professors are shying away from entire topics, not just a given perspective on a topic,” Mr. Shapiro says. They’re “just skipping over anything to do with rape or hate crimes, because they’re too sensitive. You try to write an exam question and there are too many red flags, too many tripwires.” These professors do “their students a disservice by not training them in how to advocate in the real world of courts. There, it’s not a conversation between the left and the far left.”


Mr. Shapiro says “nonprogressive” law professors were rare even 20 years ago, when he studied law at the University of Chicago. Critical legal studies, fashionable in the late 1980s and early ’90s, was “passé, a very small niche thing.” Since then, “what’s really changed is the bureaucratic explosion. And most of that bureaucracy is in this DEI space, which actively subverts the traditional educational mission of truth-seeking” with its “ideas of power dynamics and intersectionality, dividing people into oppressive and oppressed classes, and things like that.”


Pressure comes from without as well: In February 2022 the American Bar Association, which has sole authority to accredit U.S. law schools, passed a resolution demanding that they “provide education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism.” At the same time, the Biden administration’s drive for racial equity “seems to be sprinkling political commissars throughout the government.” With a mordant optimism, he observes that those may be “the only kinds of jobs that law school graduates who refuse to engage ideas they don’t like and spew epithets at federal judges may be qualified for.”


But those jobs also have real-world power, the exercise of which could eventually cumulate into “regime change,” Mr. Shapiro warns. “I’m not trying to be hyperbolic or bombastic. If you read critical legal studies, of which critical race theory is a subset, you’ll read about the need to ‘fundamentally dismantle existing structures,’ to ‘change the way social hierarchies operate.’ . . . The goal is to fundamentally change the way that American society operates.”


These ideas are particularly fashionable on elite campuses, although Mr. Shapiro notes recent hostile incidents at lower-rated schools such as Texas A&M, the University of Kansas and UC Hastings (the last involving Mr. Shapiro himself). “There’s a higher quotient of activist types who would engage in disruptions and contribute to an illiberal atmosphere at a Yale than at a University of Iowa.” At top schools, “more people are getting that law degree to change the world, whereas at lower-ranked schools, they want to be lawyers. They want to make money and get a job and join the upper middle class.”


Is there any hope for elite schools? After Judge Duncan’s mobbing, Jenny Martinez, dean of Stanford Law School, issued a 10-page memo that strongly defended free speech and academic freedom, apologized to the judge and announced that Ms. Steinbach, the DEI associate dean, had been placed on administrative leave.


Mr. Shapiro would like to see more. He thinks universities need to enforce their policies against hecklers’ vetoes by disciplining those who violate them. Law schools can suspend students, even expel them in serious cases, and impose career consequences. “They can also report to a bar association,” Mr. Shapiro says. “All law schools have to sign off on a character and fitness assessment before a graduate can take the bar exam.” If a student has been “completely disruptive, and has demonstrated that he doesn’t have the character and fitness to be a lawyer, they can be adjudged not fit to sit for the bar exam”—with due process, including the right of appeal, of course.


Ms. Martinez did none of that. Her memo promised to institute “mandatory educational programming for our student body rather than referring specific students for disciplinary sanction” and to blur students’ faces when the university releases video of the event.


Mr. Shapiro says there have to be “exogenous shocks to really change things.” One approach might be to target the elite schools’ status. Judges James Ho and Elizabeth Branch of the Fifth and 11th Circuits, respectively, announced in October that they won’t hire clerks from Yale until the school reforms its policies on free speech. “If any Supreme Court justice said that,” Mr. Shapiro says, “it would be a game-changer.” In an article for National Review, Judges Ho and Branch also called on Stanford to “identify the disrupters so that future employers know who they are hiring.”


Mr. Shapiro takes heart that “people who are not cultural warriors of the left or the right are starting to notice this stuff, and they don’t like what they see.” Lawmakers in 15 states have introduced bills to slash or abolish DEI offices and staff at public colleges, although none have passed so far. The backlash is still inchoate, and Mr. Shapiro believes the only solution is to purge “DEI bureaucracies that undermine the liberal values of academic speech and due process.”


Mr. Varadarajan, a Journal contributor, is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and at New York University Law School’s Classical Liberal Institute.


DEI at Law Schools Could Bring Down America - WSJ

The Great Grade Giveaway

August 19, 2025
You get an A! And you get an A! On campuses this fall, some students might feel like they’ve wandered into their own Oprah episode, except the prize is a transcript filled with top marks.

Announcing Major Gift from Dr. William Winkenwerder '76

August 15, 2025
DFTD Newsletter 8/19/2025 Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse is honored to announce a multi-year, major gift from Dr. William Winkenwerder. This generous commitment will ensure that the Davidson community can engage directly with leading voices who shape global affairs and national security policy. A 1976 graduate of Davidson College and former member of the Davidson College Board of Trustees (2015-2022), Dr. Winkenwerder is a nationally recognized physician and health care executive who served as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs under President George W. Bush and as a senior leader at the Department of Health and Human Services under President Ronald Regan. His long-standing dedication to public service and his commitment to robust, open discussion on critical issues of foreign policy have been a hallmark of his career. Dr. Winkenwerder’s support will bolster DFTD’s programs by creating the Winkenwerder Policy Series on the Middle East , allowing students to welcome distinguished guests exploring some of today’s most challenging global issues. In collaboration with students and faculty, this series of speakers will offer the Davidson campus and community the chance to hear firsthand perspectives from experts in US Defense Policy, Middle East relations, and international policy at large. This transformative gift from Dr. Winkenwerder will enable vital conversations that foster open discourse and inspire Davidson students and the campus community to explore global issues with curiosity and purpose.

An Open Letter to the Davidson College Biology Department

August 13, 2025
By Hannah Fay '25 Dear Davidson Faculty and Biology Professors, I recently graduated from Davidson College in May with a degree in biology. For much of my undergraduate experience, I was on the pre-PA track, driven by a passion for helping people. However, during the fall of my senior year, I reevaluated my long-term goals, making a pivotal shift toward health policy, health reform, and politics. I decided to no longer pursue PA school when I got involved in Young Americans for Freedom and during an internship with Davidsonians for Freedom of Thought and Discourse. While this did not change the classes I took in college, the lens from which I took them had changed. This transition led me to Washington, D.C., where I joined The Heritage Foundation — a prominent conservative think tank — as the Communications Fellow. I’m excited to contribute to the conservative movement and drive impactful change in health and public policy. My career aspirations shifted the moment I started asking questions. I’ve always been conservative. While it’s true that Davidson is not widely known for conservative voices, many of my peers quietly share my convictions. Yet, they hesitate to speak up in class or challenge professors’ perspectives out of fear of grave consequences and being ostracized by classmates. That said, my intent is not to dwell on this issue, but to address the Biology Department directly: I urge you to foster critical questioning and ideological diversity in biology, empowering students to become true critical thinkers. As a liberal arts institution, students attend Davidson to engage in critical thinking. Learning how to think is different from learning what to think. Many Davidson College students pursue biology to help and heal people while others pursue cancer research, probe the origin of life, or tackle pressing environmental challenges. Learning how to think requires engaging in rigorous, high-level discussions. These conversations go beyond one-sided opinions or theories; they involve deconstructing every premise, interrogating narratives, and exposing blind spots. This forges true critical thinkers, shapes our values, and determines facts. I realize professors bring established beliefs into the classroom — yet I urge biology professors to be facilitators rather than dictators over students’ beliefs. Reflecting on my time at Davidson, I grew exponentially in classes when professors played devil’s advocate — challenging arguments and demanding reasoning behind students’ positions. Though these courses were undoubtedly the most rigorous, that very rigor defines the challenging, growth-focused experience Davidson students seek. Students come to college at the impressionable ages of seventeen or eighteen, likely leaving the familiarity of home for the first time. Some students seek to escape the protective bubble their parents created, others rebel against those expectations, many search for a belief system to embrace, and still others wish to strengthen their existing convictions. Yet, to strengthen, one must be stretched. I've found that true growth often comes from being questioned — it's in those moments that I'm pushed to understand and articulate why I hold certain beliefs. If I can’t explain the reasoning behind my convictions, do I genuinely believe them? Some of my most meaningful conversations at Davidson were with people whose perspectives differed from mine. These discussions stretched me to defend my beliefs thoughtfully, which not only strengthened my convictions but also deepened my understanding of another perspective. At the same time, being open to questioning creates space for evolving perspectives. Thoughtful inquiry must begin with the professors. When faculty consistently question assumptions, it signals to students that intellectual exploration is not just encouraged — it’s nonnegotiable. Yet, from my personal observation, there has been a decline in students actively questioning, though I don’t believe this stems from a loss of curiosity (although this is a point worth considering). A study from 2021 revealed that only 4.3% of students ask questions ‘often.’ This study suggests that common barriers to asking questions include being afraid of judgement and not knowing enough to ask a ‘good’ question. Students hesitate to ask questions that challenge what they perceive to be their professors’ viewpoints. Students are more likely to speak up when they see their professors humbly wrestling with difficult questions, modeling the very curiosity and analytical rigor that higher education claims to foster. In an era when many young people feel pressure to conform or self-censor, inquiry from professors becomes a powerful tool: it legitimizes uncertainty. Moreover, ideological diversity has become a lost art at Davidson College. During my undergrad, I rarely encountered a balance of ideology in the classroom. Most — if not all — of my classes advanced the liberal agenda. For example, after the 2024 election, I had many biology classes cancelled the next day in response to President Trump winning the election. One of my professors spoke to the class as if everyone in the class should be mourning the outcome of the election, without any regard to the fact that many students voted for President Trump. If the outcome were the other way around, I am certain that not a single class would have been canceled. A close friend of mine went to her class the day after the election and found what seemed to be a funeral service being held in the classroom. The professor had turned the lights off, was crying, and gave each student a hug as they walked into the room. There were countless stories from professors all over campus of their reactions to the election and how they pressed their agenda onto their students — telling them that their rights were going to be taken from them and lying about President Trump. This is particularly disappointing given Davidson’s identity as a liberal arts institution, one that should celebrate intellectual diversity and the exchange of differing viewpoints. Differences in thought strengthen a community, not divide it, as they too often do in education today. I urge biology professors to actively foster ideological diversity in your classroom — even when those views differ from professors’ own. Professors — please take care not to silence conservative voices, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Encourage thoughtful, respectful dialogue, and help ensure that all students feel free to speak, question, and engage without fear of their grades suffering or facing rejection from peers. Please, when presenting a biologist’s research, do not declare, “Her research is important because she was openly gay in the 80s.” How incredibly insulting to her intelligence. Her ideas — not her sexual identity — should be the reason the biology department teaches her work. Do not tell students that if they get pregnant, they should come to you so you can “help them take care of it.” Parents are not paying $85,000 a year for a professor to tell their daughter to get an abortion, or for a professor to encourage their son’s casual sex. Not to mention, biologists, more than any other person, should understand that life begins at conception. Thus, termination — of any kind, for any reason — of a fetus after conception is murder. Moreover, educators are not parents and have no mandate to recommend abortion. And professors must face the fact: encouraging casual sex does not empower students. Professors should keep their political affiliations private: they must not impose an unsolicited agenda on students. Davidson College attracts minds full of brilliant questions. The biology department must become a crucible for genuine thought, not indoctrination. Welcoming diverse inquiries — subjecting each to the same scrutiny — models the open-mindedness at the heart of a liberal arts education. I hope biology professors do their own research before presenting information to students as “fact.” I hope office-hour conversations become a safe space for students to challenge and explore convictions, even when those convictions differ from their professors. Davidson students have the opportunity to learn from some of the best and highest-minded professors in academia – it would be a disservice to both parties to not welcome proper discourse. I hope the biology department considers my recommendations for balanced ideological thought in their classrooms. Thank you for your time and consideration. Hannah Fay ’25 Hannah Fay graduated from Davidson College in 2025 with a Bachelor of Science in Biology and currently serves as a Communications Fellow at the Heritage Foundation.
Show More