Fallout from last week's congressional hearing on DEI and legal education

July 27, 2026 - 03:20

Last week, I criticized the ABA's handling of its appearance before Congress on DEI, accreditation, and legal education. I later acknowledged there were reasonable defenses of the ABA, and I noted that these hearings often generate more publicity than actual legislative action. I wondered what consequences might follow for the ABA and its Council on Legal Education.

But I missed a bigger story that has since unfolded.

One of the witnesses was David Blackman, a former Penn State law student who dropped out after a dispute over the school's anti-racism curriculum. The Free Beacon covered his story on May 14, 2026, including his confrontations with Dean Danielle Conway, who led the curriculum changes. That story did not create major public waves at the time.

Let me offer some disclaimers. I was a visiting professor at Penn State from 2010 to 2011, and I am grateful for the opportunity. I have strong opinions about the school's direction over the years, especially its two-campus model and the many challenges that have come with it. Many faculty have left amid various controversies. Any story about Penn State carries extra complexity because of these factors.

Back to the main thread. Blackman told the Free Beacon he left because the curriculum was too ideological. At the hearing, at least one Democrat questioned his tactics as a student. I will set that aside, but I want to acknowledge it came up. The real issue is the curriculum itself.

Let me separate two things: ABA accreditation standards and individual school choices. Penn State launched its anti-racism curriculum before any ABA mandate. Most law deans pushed for the ABA to require something on anti-racism, and the ABA did, only to later move toward repeal. I supported that repeal. An ABA mandate can pressure schools to add ideological content, but schools like Penn State would have done it anyway.

At the hearing, Blackman repeated what the May story said. Since the story was two months old, I assumed its content was already factored into any decisions being made.

The hearing started at 2:30 pm on a Wednesday. By midday Friday, July 24, about 48 hours later, Penn State announced that Dean Conway was leaving her role effective immediately. No reasons were given. Conway offered no statement. She is currently president of the AALS, with an annual meeting theme focused on political polarization and ideological censorship. It would be surprising for a dean to abruptly step down without explanation in the middle of that role.

I have been critical of the AALS for not addressing what I see as existential crises in legal education: accreditation, financing, and the impact of AI on teaching and the profession. This year's theme ignores those issues. I admit my own biases here.

It is possible the hearing, with live video testimony, reached more stakeholders than the Free Beacon article did. Penn State is a public institution and faces extra scrutiny. New scrutiny may have led to a new decision.

It is also possible the motivation was legal concerns, not just disagreement over curriculum. Whether the process or compelled speech issues rise to a First Amendment violation is not for me to decide. But the public resurfacing of these issues may have worried the university's general counsel.

This would be a remarkable development. In recent congressional hearings that led to administrators losing their jobs, those administrators testified personally. It would be unusual for an administrator to lose her position based on testimony from other witnesses, without her being present.

I want to be cautious. An abrupt announcement with no reasons, no statement from the dean, and no context except its timing right after a hearing that put the school in a bad light suggests a particular inference. That inference might be wrong. It would take investigation to find out what really happened.