A Critique of Affirmative Action After SFFA v. Harvard

Richard Sander, UCLA law professor and economist, has spent decades advancing one of the most controversial arguments in legal education: that large racial preferences in law school admissions may frequently harm the students they are intended to help. In this episode of New Law Order, Joel Cohen and Yale Law Professor John Morley speak with Sander about affirmative action, the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, and what new data may reveal about the future of law school admissions.

Sander explains his “mismatch” hypothesis: the claim that students admitted with very large academic preferences may be more likely to struggle academically, land at the bottom of the class, and face lower odds of passing the bar than if they had attended a school where their entering credentials were closer to the median. The discussion is direct, data-heavy, and often uncomfortable, touching on race, merit, institutional secrecy, bar passage, and the incentives that shape elite legal education.

Sander also examines what changed after SFFA. He argues that the first post-SFFA admissions cycle produced one of the most dramatic shifts in elite law school admissions in decades, with some schools appearing to reduce racial preferences substantially while others found ways to preserve diversity through different admissions strategies. Joel and John press Sander on the strength of the evidence, the limits of the mismatch theory, and whether the legal academy has been willing to test its own assumptions.

The episode then turns from law schools to law firms. If elite employers continue to hire for diversity while drawing heavily from credential-driven pipelines, what obligations do they have to train, support, and retain the lawyers they recruit? Sander argues that real affirmative action cannot stop at admission or hiring; it must include institutional investment after the offer is made.

Guest: Richard Sander is a professor at UCLA School of Law and a PhD economist whose work focuses on law, inequality, housing, and affirmative action. He is one of the leading academic critics of racial preferences in higher education and was cited by the Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.

For more conversations with the figures reshaping the legal business, subscribe to New Law Order. For a CLE-eligible version of this interview and more legal analysis, visit www.talksonlaw.com. For questions or comments, email newlaworder@talksonlaw.com.