This study looks closely at how law school faculty and administration feel that Trump Administration policies have impacted their law schools. The report helps its readers answer questions such as: to what extent has the law school altered its admissions policies and what are the long term consequences? Should law schools take some kind of public position on Trump Administration policies? What is the potential impact of possible changes in law school accreditation policies? Have law schools become too politicized? Or are their efforts in the political arena insufficient or biased?
Selected findings
A large majority describe themselves as familiar with the policies and proposals covered: 45.59% very familiar and 45.59% somewhat familiar.
On whether law schools should disfavor firms that reached agreements with the Trump Administration, 42.65% say yes and 39.71% say no. Among conservative or further-right respondents, 83.33% say no.
Six in ten (60.29%) say law schools have been insufficiently vigorous in opposing university deals with the administration. Among conservative or further-right respondents, 66.67% instead say the opposition has been too or way too vigorous.
On admissions, 30.88% report that their law school altered policies in response to executive orders, lawsuits, or other administration pressure; 36.76% report no change and 26.47% are unsure. These are respondents’ reports, not verified institutional counts.
Looking ahead, 48.53% expect the accreditation policies described in the survey to weaken quality assurance somewhat or substantially, while 10.29% expect improvement. Views diverge sharply by political outlook.
Open-ended responses explore admissions practices, academic freedom, the independence of the profession, and competing views of equity policies. The report gives law school leaders a detailed account of faculty perceptions, including differences by role and political outlook.