I think the astute commentator's statement is misleading. Using US News data.

Here are the demographics of the Howard Law student body:
2005-2006 Enrollment
Enrollment full-time/part-time

Total: 451 (full-time), 0 (part-time)
Men: 40% (full-time)
Women: 60% (full-time)
Full-time enrollment by gender

African-American: 79.8%
American Indian: 0.7%
Asian-American: 3.8%
Mexican-American: 0.0%
Puerto Rican: 0.0%
Other Hispanic-American: 2.7%
White: 4.0%
International: 6.9%
Unknown: 2.2%

Here are the student body demographics of the law school I just graduated from (IU-Indy):
2005-2006 Enrollment
Enrollment full-time/part-time

Total: 642 (full-time), 271 (part-time)
Men: 50% (full-time) 55% (part-time)
Women: 50% (full-time) 45% (part-time)
Full-time enrollment by gender

African-American: 6.7%
American Indian: 0.3%
Asian-American: 3.9%
Mexican-American: 2.1%
Puerto Rican: 0.5%
Other Hispanic-American: 1.9%
White: 82.4%
International: 2.2%
Unknown: 0.0%

I could not find anything regarding the demographics of Charleston.

But, the astute commentator makes it sound that Howard only has 4% non-black, which is not the case. They have about the same amount of non-blacks as IU-Indy has of minorities (20%). I would be curious to see what other ethnic populations are at Charleston, and that is where the ABA is probably basing their deicsion.

To make a more concise statement: according to US News, Howard is as diverse in student population as IU-Indy.

Regardless of anything else, the commentor on Bernstein's post clearly says that "4% of the students are white." He does not say that HU is 4% non-black.

I don't know if you just didn't read the comment, or if you are trying to make a point by lying. Feel free to clarify.

Lying?

I think I put out statistics that suggest all in all, Howard has as a diverse student body as IU-Indy. It just so happens that the largest part of the student population is black at Howard, not white. Compare the largest population with the other minority populations (and in this case whites fall into the collective minority) and you meet the ABA's diversity requirement: 80% of one ethnic group and 20% of others.

A person of principle can easily find good and valid reasons for dumping the ABA. Great numbers of Catholic lawyers have left.

If conservatives on the whole got nearly as worked up about racial discrimination in the workplace (for example, employers being much less likely to respond to resumes with equal qualification where applicant has an "ethnic" sounding name)as they are regarding school forced diversity, maybe the diversity would happen on a more natural basis.

And consider a 2005 study published in the American Sociological Review titled "What Employers Say Versus What They Do." The survey indicated no racial bias when employers were asked about their hiring practices. This was regardless of whether or not the survey interviewer was white or black. But when the employees were audited for who they did hire, it showed that in practice, on an equal qualification basis, whites were three times as likely to be hired as blacks.

Further, it seems to me that minority communities are in need of attorneys. I don't see many white attorneys hanging out their shingle in minority neighborhoods. Same for physicians and many other professionals.

Although I think diversity requirements can be carried to ridiculous extremes, society may be well served at times by boosting peoples set back generations by exclusion from the professions. Many conservatives seem to view the world entirely through the lens of the individual, but Christians ought to also view society in terms of community.

In sum, I see white conservatives (mainly) worked up in a lather about minorities getting something they don't deserve, but almost wholly indifferent to whites getting jobs they don't merit.

You say: But, the astute commentator makes it sound that Howard only has 4% non-black, which is not the case.

But the commentor said: only 4% of the students at Howard Law School are white.

That doesn't make it sound like Howard has 4% non-black at all. It makes it sound like Howard has 4% white students. So, while I readily concede that "lying" was the wrong word, "grossly misrepresenting what someone else said" is a fairly correct term, I think.

Joel: I'm not a conservative, so perhaps I don't count - but I'm just as opposed to legacy scholarships and such as I am any other non-merit based rewards. And for goodness' sake, if we're going to give non-merit based rewards, I think they should be based on economics, not race/ethnicity. It's much more difficult (although not impossible) to argue against giving poor people of all races/colors/creeds money to go to school with.

Nick,

There are other issues here besides who "merits" to be admitted to schools. There is the very real issue of minority neighborhoods' access to legal and medical care. The U.S. is sometimes such an individualistic society that there is an attitude of indifference to minority community needs. In Biblical terms, the needs of the community frequently trump the "rights" of the individual.

My point stands that I don't see much concern at all about housing or employment discrimination against minorities. Those two areas alone place minorities at signficant disadvantage at competing with whites.

As far as basing scholarships or grants based on economic status rather than on race, I think that might be a good idea.

Many fraternity and sorority brothers and sisters use networking to help their less qualified "kin" get jobs ahead of the more qualified without connections, but there is barely much of a protest against that.

Regarding black-sounding names on resumes, I just finished reading Freakonomics and its author Steven Levitt, along with Roland G. Fryer Jr., presents data showing that having a "black" name has no effect on life outcomes when other factors are controlled for. He concludes that "What really matters is not that you're named Kayesha, it's that you live in a community where you're likely to get that name that matters."

From all the studies I've read about, I believe that if you look hard enough, you can find vestiges of racial discrimination in society, yet on the whole things are very equitable when you take socioeconomic status into account. I am of the opinion that we can more effectively help minority groups by building up minority families and communities, than by going on a Quixotic quest to erase every last bit of racial bias (some of which may very well be inherent in human nature).