News | Administration

Columbia Law School affinity groups boycott admissions process

By Hannah Yanover / Staff Photographer
Leaders of Columbia Law School affinity groups raised concerns that Law School Admissions has historically not compensated student groups for their participation in events hosted by Law School Admissions.
By Sabrina Ticer-Wurr • March 31, 2023 at 4:09 PM

Affinity groups at the Law School are boycotting formal involvement with the school’s admissions process. The boycott comes after a March 14 post on the official Law School Instagram account, highlighting a meeting between Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the Columbia Law School branch of the Federalist Society.

The boycott was spearheaded by the Columbia Black Law Students Association out of concern about the post, but also over what it characterized as a long-standing “pattern of behavior” from the Law School toward students of color, according to a statement posted on March 21.

The official Law School Instagram account posted the photo of Justice Kavanaugh with the caption, “On February 23, members of the Columbia Federalist Society (@clsfedsoc) visited the Supreme Court of the United States to engage in conversation with Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. During the visit, they learned about the human side of being a justice, the Court’s deliberation process, and how to be an effective advocate. Justice Kavanaugh also answered questions about a few of his most famous opinions.”

Law School Dean Gillian Lester responded to concerns raised by affinity group leaders over allegations of sexual assault against Kavanaugh in an email.

“I regret that it has … caused you and other members of our community pain and dismay, particularly those who have experienced sexual assault,” Lester wrote.

However, Lester defended the post, indicating that it will remain on the Instagram page.

“While we may have deep differences of opinion about those we encounter, we must, as a community, be willing to hold ample space for thoughtful and respectful disagreement, including about others’ choice of different professional mentors and engagements than our own,” Lester wrote. “Taking down this post, to me, sits in tension with these values.”

The controversy comes at a time when freedom of speech at academic institutions is being called into question nationwide. At Stanford Law School, an administrator has been on leave after defending student protestors who disrupted an event with conservative Judge Kyle Duncan. Stanford President Marc Tessier-Lavigne and Stanford Law School Dean Jenny Martinez issued an apology to Duncan, stating that the protests violated the campus’s free speech policies.

A spokesperson for the Law School directed the Spectator to Lester’s email to affinity group leaders.


The BLSA asserted in another statement on March 23 that the “only time the administration expresses concern or interest in the functioning of our organization is when it comes time to recruit a new class of diverse students.”

BLSA executive board members declined a request for an interview. At the time of publishing, no other affinity groups have responded to requests for interviews.

Last week, a number of student affinity groups posted statements to their Instagrams in solidarity with BLSA, and expressed similar grievances through email to Law School administration. These included the Latinx American Law Students Association, Native American Law Student Association, Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, South Asian Law Students Association, Empowering Women of Color, and Columbia Law Women’s Association.

The statements condemned the March 14 Instagram post and included a variety of concerns specific to affinity groups. Many expressed complaints that Law School Admissions has historically not compensated student groups for their involvement in the process.

A statement posted by the Latinx Law Students Association on March 23 echoed the BLSA’s concerns about uncompensated labor, citing lack of financial support for affinity groups’ planning the annual Perspectives event for admitted students, as well as for the annual For People of Color Conference.

“A handful of students coordinated all the logistics and seven affinity groups, primarily students of color, were left to use their own funds to pay,” the organization wrote in the statement.

Another group, Empowering Women of Color, also took issue with the Perspectives admissions event, but for different reasons.

“EWOC has been incredibly frustrated with the Admission Office’s policy of excluding our organization from certain Admitted Students Programming like ‘Perspectives’ because some of our members are not considered to be ‘historically oppressed enough,’ despite the fact that many EWOC members experience intersecting marginalization based on their class, race, gender, and sexuality,” EWOC wrote in a statement on March 22.

After meeting with current executive board members of the BLSA, Lester sent out an email communicating the administration’s stance to affinity group leaders that expressed concerns.


“Dean Yadira and I have begun conversations with some of our colleagues regarding the issues you raised, including the allocation of resources, space, and support for the important functions undertaken by student organizations,” Lester wrote. “Building on the ideas you offered, we are already exploring a range of possible solutions. We look forward to sharing updates and remain open to further conversation.”

Aside from the Law School Instagram post and issues surrounding a lack of compensation for admissions events, a joint written statement from the Asian Pacific American Law Students Association and the South Asian Law Students Association expressed more general concerns about the Law School’s recruitment process.

The groups accused the Law School administration of homogenizing the Asian American community, and providing inadequate support for people with Bangladeshi, Pacific Islander, Hmong, and other Southeast Asian heritage who are underrepresented in the field of law.

“In addition to removing the Instagram post, we demand the [Columbia Law School] administration provide our organizations with access to disaggregated admissions data and do better in both acknowledging and recruiting underrepresented South Asian and AAPI communities,” the organizations wrote.

While the 2022-23 executive boards of Law School affinity groups remain steadfast in their boycott, the decision of whether to continue their disassociation from the admissions office will be decided by newly elected executive boards for the 2023-24 school year.

Law School administrators hope this boycott will be temporary.

“I know you will disagree with this decision, and understand that you will continue to choose to refrain from participating in Law School-sponsored admissions events,” Lester wrote. “I nonetheless hope we can find a path forward in the spirit of genuine care for our shared community.”

In the meantime, a Law School affinity groups mixer hosted on March 29 by the BLSA, LaLSA, NALSA, APALSA, SALSA, EWOC, Middle Eastern Law Students Association, Queer and Trans People of Color at Columbia Law School, and Columbia OutLaws provided prospective students with the opportunity to meet members of Law School affinity groups. The event was funded independently of Law School Admissions.

Prospective Law School students must submit enrollment decisions by May 1.


Meanwhile, affinity groups like EWOC have called for a change in administrative attitude amid the current legal climate, which includes the forthcoming decisions on cases that will decide the future of affirmative action.

“It is time for Columbia Law School to sharpen its politics,” EWOC wrote in its statement.

Staff Writer Sabrina Ticer-Wurr can be contacted at sabrina.ticer-wurr@columbiaspectator.com. Follow her on Twitter @sabrinatwwrites.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter and like Spectator on Facebook.

More In News
Editor's Picks