By Audrey Hatfield (MPA ’23)

Not that long ago, the idea of higher educational institutions committing themselves to diversity and equity initiatives would have felt like an empty promise. Or that they acknowledge that their predominately white student bodies maybe had a leg up on their fellow non-white students? Definitely not. But with generations of activists fighting to lay bare the structural inequality in this country, an increasing number of institutions are embracing their own commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Those who would be most likely to tackle racism and inequity woven into the very heart of the country’s legal infrastructure are law graduates from elite universities.

Today, each of the top five law schools in the country — Yale, Stanford, Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Chicago — have their own DEI statements, with many more following suit. In their own words, they seek to “emphasize the importance not just of diversity, but of inclusion” and to “prepare students to work effectively in a highly diverse society still grappling with racism and other forms of inequality.”

These ivy-clad universities have long been the home ground for generations of lawyers who have gone on to become high-profile leaders and shape laws that govern every aspect of our lives. It finally seems like higher education has reached a crossroads: by committing themselves to DEI, these institutions have signed on to the goal and responsibility of creating a generation of elite law school graduates who will go out into the world wielding the law, keeping the principle of equity in mind.

Unfortunately, this does not appear to apply to the current generation of law school alumni. At present, the nation is awaiting a verdict by the Supreme Court in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization case, a court case with the potential to overturn nearly 50 years of protection of the right to an abortion before viability. This case is being argued by a Stanford Law graduate, on behalf of the petitioners, and a Harvard Law graduate, on behalf of the respondents. There is no denying that abortion is controversial and intersects with many deeply held beliefs, but this is first and foremost an issue of equity, as the brief of amici curiae (friend of the court) filed on behalf of the respondents points out.

The lawyers of a past generation may not have had DEI as an integral component of their legal education, but the graduates of today will have a different narrative. The DEI initiatives that universities have committed themselves to should be viewed as a societal contract. Universities have agreed to provide their students with training and exposure to systems of inequality, racial inequity, and disparate impact, thereby ensuring that DEI is a pillar on which legal education is built. Moving forward, society may come to view graduates who wield the law to further dismantle legal access to equity as evidence of a broken contract and a failure of law schools to uphold the DEI commitment they espouse. At any rate, it should lay bare whether or not current university DEI statements are more than just a public image campaign to placate a changing society. 

Since the seminal Roe v. Wade judgment, women who were able to access abortion for their unintended pregnancy saw an almost 40 percent increase in the probability that they entered a professional occupation. Delaying unplanned motherhood by just a single year resulted in nearly an 11 percent increase in hourly wages later in their career. The impact is felt even more strongly by Black women. Access to abortion led to a 22 to 24 percent increase in the probability that  Black teenage women graduated from high school, and a 23 to 27 percent increase in the probability that they would go on to attend college. These are not just numbers; they are the livelihoods and professions of women across the country that will be affected if Roe is overturned or curtailed. 

Conservative scholars may challenge the methodology, intent, and evidence employed to arrive at these results, and conservative lawyers may grandstand judicial philosophy and constitutional interpretation. But the brief was filed by a group of 154 economists from distinguished organizations including the American Economic Association, the National Bureau of Economic Research, and the National Academies of Sciences. Their research asserts that an entire segment of society will lose equitable access to opportunity in this country, with minority women suffering the biggest loss. Even as the societal call for equity and justice grows louder, there remain elite law school graduates with a mission to further disenfranchise members of society. While the Supreme Court’s final verdict isn’t due until early summer 2022, commitment to DEI appears to be falling by the wayside today. 

Audrey Hatfield is a contributing editor and first-year student in the Economic and Political Development program at SIPA. Her background is in finance, with previous experience working in the corporate banking sector.