How DEI is hijacking the future of legal education

Ilya Shapiro’s new book argues that DEI is undermining academic rigour and pushing a generation of lawyers toward activism

Title: Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elite
Author: Ilya Shapiro
Publisher: Harper Collins
Publication Year: 2025

Interview requests

Ilya Shapiro’s Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elite critiques the growing influence of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) ideologies in legal education and their negative impact on the legal profession. A respected appellate attorney (a lawyer specializing in appeals) with over 500 briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, Shapiro’s career was nearly derailed in 2022 after a tweet questioning U.S. President Joe Biden’s decision to limit his Supreme Court nominee choices to an African-American woman.

Following the tweet, Shapiro was subjected to an investigation by Georgetown University’s DEI office. This led to what Shapiro described as a “modern-day struggle session”—a thorough four-month investigation, ultimately resulting in Georgetown’s conditional acceptance of Shapiro’s role with the proviso that he avoid making similar “offensive” statements in the future.

Seeing this as a slow-motion termination, Shapiro left Georgetown and instead joined the Manhattan Institute. His experience, which underscores the perils of cancel culture, exemplifies the larger issues in legal education that he addresses in his book: the bureaucratic bloat and activist-driven ideologies that have infiltrated law schools.

Legal education has become increasingly dominated by DEI initiatives, which prioritize ideological conformity over academic rigour. Shapiro argues that law schools, once bastions of critical thinking and intellectual diversity, are now promoting legal activism rather than neutral legal practice.

DEI programs, while well-intentioned in supporting underrepresented groups, have led to a growing administrative bloat. University administration staff in the U.S. grew by 240 per cent between 1975 and 2005, while faculty numbers only increased by 50 per cent. This rise in bureaucracy has shifted the focus from rigorous academic study to ideological conformity, weakening the core purpose of law schools: to prepare students for unbiased, neutral legal practice.

Law students, increasingly pressured to adopt an activist mindset, are at risk of undermining the impartiality essential to the legal profession.

One key manifestation of this shift is in the area of accreditation. The American Bar Association (ABA), a prominent U.S. professional association for lawyers, has become a major enforcer of DEI standards within law schools. While many American lawyers do not belong to the ABA, the association’s accreditation power forces law schools to adopt progressive ideologies, skewing legal education and practice.

This influence is felt most strongly in the way law schools structure their curriculums and the types of candidates they hire. In contrast, organizations like the Federalist Society—an influential U.S.-based group advocating for a more traditional, neutral interpretation of the law—provide a counterbalance. However, the ABA’s power far outweighs that of the Federalist Society, leaving few opportunities for law students to engage with more traditional legal viewpoints.

Shapiro’s critique extends beyond the U.S. to Canada, raising an important question: Are we facing similar problems here? The answer is yes. Like their American counterparts, Canadian law schools have embraced activist ideologies. However, unlike in the U.S., Canada lacks a significant counterweight to the ideological dominance of the Canadian Bar Association (CBA), which has similarly been influenced by progressive ideologies.

The CBA, in Shapiro’s view, stifles dissent and limits intellectual diversity within the legal profession. Provincial law societies, which regulate the practice of law in Canada, share similar tendencies, further enforcing ideological conformity and restricting open debate within the legal profession. The absence of organizations like the Federalist Society in Canada means there is no formal platform for traditionalist legal thought, leaving the legal profession increasingly monolithic.

Shapiro offers several solutions to combat these problems, which are equally applicable to Canada. First, he advocates for dismantling the DEI bureaucracies that have taken hold in universities. This doesn’t mean ending support for qualified minority students, but rather removing the ideological dogma that silences dissenting voices and stifles intellectual debate.

Shapiro also calls for fostering a culture of free speech within law schools, where open and respectful debate can flourish. In Canada, Shapiro’s proposals are particularly timely. The creation of an organization comparable to the U.S.-based Federalist Society would provide a platform for lawyers who advocate for traditional legal principles and a more neutral interpretation of the law. Additionally, Shapiro proposes legislative reforms to provincial law societies that would increase transparency, ensure greater accountability, and limit the power of these bodies to sanction lawyers for speech that deviates from a politically correct narrative.

Shapiro’s book is a timely and necessary critique of the direction in which legal education is heading, both in the U.S. and Canada. The rise of activist ideologies in law schools and legal organizations threatens the neutrality essential to the legal profession. If these issues are left unaddressed, the consequences will be far-reaching, undermining the integrity of legal institutions and the rule of law itself.

Collin May is a Senior Fellow with the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a lawyer, and Adjunct Lecturer in Community Health Sciences at the University of Calgary, with degrees in law (Dalhousie University), a Masters in Theological Studies (Harvard) and a Diplome d’etudes approfondies (Ecole des hautes etudes, Paris).