It defies logic; why do law schools continue to use standardized admissions tests when that process harms diversity? Being one of the least diverse professions in the United States shows our current admissions protocols are not working. Something must change. The legal profession is made up of approximately thirteen percent of lawyers who identify as members of underrepresented communities. This is true despite members of underrepresented communities comprising approximately forty percent of the United States population. This stark contrast highlights the need for immediate systemic efforts aimed at increasing the population of members of underrepresented communities in the practice of law. The importance of increasing diversity in the legal profession is vital to the survival of our democracy as the legal system and lawyers play a crucial role in “seeking improvements [changes] in the law, access to the legal system, [and] the administration of justice, [as well as] furthering the public’s understanding of and confidence in the rule of law and the justice system.” The public’s confidence in the legal system is central to the constitutional democracy. This public confidence requires the membership of the legal profession to reflect the diversity of the population. The concerning lack of diversity in the law profession will only grow due to the current Supreme Court which is all but certain to ban the consideration of race in higher education admissions decisions. While much is left to be done to eradicate systematic racism in the justice system, a crucial first step is to eliminate all racist and sexist barriers to the practice of law. One such barrier is the use of standardized admissions tests, such as the Law School Admissions Test (“LSAT”), which remain a stalwart of the admissions process at law schools. Since standardized tests discriminate against students from underrepresented communities and since taking a standardized test is required of all law school applicants, it is time to replace the LSAT with other admissions processes. While the American Bar Association is considering changing Standard 503 from requiring an admissions test to allowing the use of an admissions test, this change will have very little effect on diversity due to the heavy reliance on these admissions tests for ranking law schools and the wayward belief that the LSAT is the best predictor of future success in law school, the bar exam, and law practice. While the LSAT has some predictive value in these areas, other admissions practices can also predict a law school applicant’s success while at the same time including a higher percentage of students from underrepresented communities in admissions. These practices include banning the use of all standardized tests in admissions decisions while utilizing alternative measures of success such as the applicant’s undergraduate grade point average which shows grit and perseverance rather than just test-taking abilities. If an across-the-board ban is too drastic of a step, law schools could become test-optional schools, which will prevent students from self-opting out of applying for schools who median LSAT scores seem unreachable to them.Law schools rely on these tests, stating that they are the best tool available to predict success, but that is not a good enough reason. Racism, sexism, and exclusion matters. To help resolve these issues, law schools have a duty to see it, recognize it, and discontinue using standardized tests in their admissions process. Any other response is illogical. If the current system was working, the representation of lawyers from underrepresented communities would reflect the numbers in our society, yet the legal profession falls short of that. The LSAT is not the great equalizer
