Drawing on responses from 68 law school faculty and administrators, the report examines admissions changes, university agreements, law-firm pressure, political stances, and the expected effects of accreditation policies.
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.