[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64077-64078]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30289]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Antitrust Division
United States v. American Bar Association, Civ. No. 95-1211 (CR)
(D.D.C.); Supplemental Response of the United States to Two Additional
Public Comments Concerning the Proposed Final Judgment
Pursuant to Section 2(d) of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties
Act, 15 U.S.C. 16(d), the United States publishes below two additional
written comments received on the proposed Final Judgment in United
States v. American Bar Association, Civil Action No. 95-1211 (CR),
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, together
with its response thereto.
Copies of the written comments and the response are available for
inspection and copying in Room 3235 of the Antitrust Division, United
States Department of Justice, Tenth Street and Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530 (telephone 202/514-2481) and the
inspection at the Office of the Clerk of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, Room 1825A, United States
Courthouse, Third Street & Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20001.
Rebecca P. Dick,
Deputy Director of Operations.
United States' Supplemental Response to Two Additional Public
Comments
The United States is filing this Supplemental Response to respond
to letters from law professors Marina Angel and Leslie Espinoza to the
Attorney General about the proposed Final Judgment. The Antitrust
Division's notice under the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act
(``APPA'') directed that public comments be sent to John F. Greaney,
Chief, Computers and Finance Section, Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division. Because Professors Angel and Espinoza sent their letters to
the Attorney General instead of Mr. Greaney, we had not received those
letters when we filed our ``Response To Public Comments'' on October
27. Since the Government's Response states that it will treat as timely
all comments received up to the time of filing that response, we
provide this Supplemental Response to these two letters from law
faculty.\1\
\1\ As the deadline for public comments has expired, any future
letters received by the Justice Department will be treated as
citizen letters and will not be filed with the Court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Government has carefully reviewed the letters from Professors
Angel and Espinoza. Entry of the proposed Final Judgment remains in the
public interest.
1. Professor Marina Angel (Exhibit 1)
Professor Angel is under the impression that the Antitrust Division
seeks to eliminate enforcement of the American Bar Association's
(``ABA'') antidiscrimination accreditation standards. ABA Accreditation
standards 211-213, dealing with discrimination, are not affected by the
proposed Final Judgment. Nor is the enforcement of those standards. Law
schools will continue to maintain faculty salary records. Accreditation
inspection teams may review these records to investigate discrimination
complaints. The proposed Final Judgment prevents the ABA, but not other
organizations, from collecting and disseminating salary data.
Additionally, site inspection teams may not compare salary levels at
one law school with those at another, since the Complaint alleges that
this had been done to raise salaries illegally, but may review the
records of the inspected school to resolve discrimination allegations.
2. Professor Leslie G. Espinoza (Exhibit 2)
Professor Espinoza is concerned that the consent decree would
prevent the Society of American Law Teachers from collecting salary
data from law schools that may be used to determine if salary levels
are discriminatory. The consent decree is not intended to relax the
ABA's antidiscrimination accreditation standards, and it will not have
that effect. The Society of American Law Teachers procures salary data
from law school deans that may be used to ascertain whether salary
levels are discriminatory. While the ABA will no longer be permitted to
collect and disseminate faculty salary data and to use it in the
accreditation process to increase faculty salaries, law schools will
continue to maintain salary data and other organizations may collect
it. In this regard, we realize that organizations, such as the American
Association of University Professors, have collected and published
faculty salary data for many years. While the ABA may not collect and
use salary data to raise general salary levels, accreditation
inspection teams may fully investigate allegations of discrimination at
a law school, including allegations of discriminatory salaries, and may
review salary records at that law school to resolve the discrimination
allegations.
Conclusion
The ABA used the accreditation process to fix and raise faculty
salaries. They collected extensive salary data and used it to pressure
schools to raise their salaries to an artificial level. The consent
decree is narrowly tailored to prevent such illegal collusion in the
future. It does not affect the ABA's enforcement of antidiscrimination
accreditation standards.
Dated: November 3, 1995.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne K. Bingaman,
Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division.
John F. Greaney,
D. Bruce Pearson,
Jessica N. Cohen,
James J. Tierney,
Molly L. DeBusschere,
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Computers and Finance
Section, Judiciary Center Building, 555 Fourth Street, N.W.,
Washington, DC 20001, 202/307-6122.
Temple University, School of Law
1719 N. Broad Street (055-00), A Commonwealth University, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19122, (215) 204-7861, Fax: (215) 204-1185
October 16, 1995.
The Honorable Janet Reno,
Attorney General, Department of Justice, R. 4400, Tenth and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530, FAX 202-514-4371
Dear Attorney General Reno: I was shocked to learn that the
Justice Department is seeking to eliminate enforcement of the
antidiscrimination Accreditation Standards of the ABA.
I didn't substantially financially support the election of
President Clinton to have you destroy what limited
antidiscrimination protection law school faculty, staff and students
currently enjoy.
I suggest you explain your antidiscrimination position to your
Antitrust Division.
[[Page 64078]]
Sincerely,
Marina Angel,
Professor of Law.
MA/teb
Enclosure
Boston College
885 Centre Street, Newton, MA 02159-1163, Law School, (617) 552-8550,
FAX (617) 552-2615
By Facsimile: 202-514-4371
October 17, 1995.
The Honorable Janet Reno,
Attorney General, Department of Justice, R. 4400, Tenth and
Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Reno: I am very disturbed that the consent
judgment proposed in the matter involving the ABA Accreditation
Standards and your antitrust division would eliminate the most
important antidiscrimination provision of the ABA standards: review
of salary and/or fringe benefits by race and gender.
The ability of the ABA Standards to put teeth in
antidiscrimination policy is important. The ability of review teams
to have access and to force disclosure of actual data is crucial.
Last January, I testified before the ABA Special Commission to
review accreditation standards. I have enclosed a copy of my
testimony. I hope that it will help illuminate what an important
role accreditation plays in the integration of law schools, and
ultimately the profession.
I also am a member of the Board of Directors of the Society of
American Law Teachers (SALT). SALT has long been concerned about the
systematic salary discrimination against women and minorities.
Indeed, SALT publishes an annual nationwide salary survey. That
survey has been used by many women and minorities to address salary
inequity in their own law school. SALT obtains the data from law
school deans. The deans are generally willing to release it because
it is released in any event in the ABA accreditation process. The
deans also are unable to claim they do not have it--because the ABA
process requires them to keep it.
I hope that the Clinton administration will take a second look
at the proposed consent judgment. As so often happens, those who are
most affected by certain provisions are outsiders to the power
process that negotiated the proposed judgment. Please do not
hesitate to call with any questions.
Sincerely,
Leslie G. Espinoza,
Professor of Law.
AALS Section on Minority Groups Newsletter
May 1995.
Testimony Before the Special Commission To Review the Substance and
Process of the American Bar Association's Accreditation of American Law
Schools
Professor Leslie G. Espinoza, Chair, AALS Section on Minority Groups,
January 6, 1995
Good Afternoon, I would like to thank the Commission for
affording the AALS Section on Minority Groups this opportunity to
comment on the ABA/AALS Accreditation process. Within the time frame
permitted by these hearings, I will make two points.
First, in addressing issues of accreditation the legal
community, particularly those of us in the academy, should be
mindful of the monopoly power we exercise. Our monopoly control is
profound. Indeed, it is protected and perpetuated by us. Persons who
engage in the unauthorized practice of law can be prosecuted--under
the law.
And the ability to determine who is authorized to practice law
is primarily controlled by the law school community. We are the
gatekeepers to the profession. For admission to practice, nearly all
state bars require graduation from an ABA accredited law school.
Admission to law school is controlled by individual law schools
through their admissions offices. Admission is also controlled
nationally through the consortium of laws schools that forms the Law
School Admissions Council. The LSAC is the organization that designs
and administers the LSAT. At the other end of the process, law
school curriculum largely drives the content of bar examinations--
increasingly so since the universalization of the Multistate Bar
Examination.
With the privilege of power comes responsibility. Access to law
is fundamental for the protection of personal and public rights.
Indeed it is often lawyers who are responsible for the recognition
or creation of those rights. Lawyers dominate legislatures as both
elected officials and legislative staff. It is the duty of law
schools, encouraged and enforced through the accreditation process,
to ensure that the future legal community is responsive to the
society as a whole.
The need to be legally relevant and responsive to the whole
community is the second point I will make today. Historically
exclusion of persons of color from law was nearly complete. This was
particularly true for women of color. Frankly, this is still largely
the case. Richard Chused's study in 1986 documented the absence of
outsiders in the academy. One third of law schools had no minority
professors, one third had only one. In 1992, Professors Merrit and
Reskin empirically documented the double standard in the hiring of
minority women in the academy. The exclusion of persons of color
from the academy continues.
The impact of those outsiders who have gained entry is
significant given our small numbers. We have worked to increase the
number of and to support minority law students. We have contributed
to the legal literature, in theory, substance and method. We have
changed the discourse by bringing our voice to the law. Despite
these contributions, there is much more work to do.
Accreditation has been the foundation for our inclusion in the
academy. It forces accountability. Importantly, accreditation
requires law schools to have historic accountability. Self studies
and site team reports view processes in the law school. The
standards require scrutiny of admissions, placement, curriculum,
hiring of faculty, tenuring process and results and administration.
Thus the accreditation process has been the only forum for
addressing issues of inclusion and discrimination in all aspects of
the institution.
I will end with reference to the letter by the consortium of
fourteen deans that gave rise to these hearings. The members of the
Section on Minority Groups fear that what underlines the deans'
challenge to accreditation. The letter questions the need for law
schools to explain, ``any departure from the pattern that has been
prescribed for all schools--why, for instance, the clinical faculty
are treated differently than the research faculty in some respect,
or what plans exist for increasing square footage in the library, or
how the `right' composition of the faculty will be achieved.'' The
members of the Section on Minorities do not doubt that this is coded
language for an attack on the ``diversity'' or ``multicultural''
requirements in the ABA standards.
Finally, the letter from the 14 deans indicates that there are
some law schools at the apex of the pyramid of all law schools--
``schools with unquestionably strong educational programs [that] are
not quickly given the ABA's seal of approval * * *'' These law
schools, the letter implies, should be beyond the review of
accreditation. The Second on Minority Groups strongly disagrees.
Indeed, the arrogance of many of the elite schools has too often
blinded them to their own exclusionary practices in hiring and
student composition. The accreditation process must apply uniformly
to all law schools in order to ensure a diverse and relevant legal
profession for the next century.
[FR Doc. 95-30289 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
