It looks like things are a bit more ambiguous than the plaintiff's attorney indicated.
Since I spoke with the attorney, LSAC released a statement indicating they are simply planning further research and development, but are not committing themselves to actually removing the section.
The plaintiff's attorney publicly asked them to clarify, and that's the last we've heard.
The language in the joint press release is extremely open-ended. The settlement language is likely more specific, but since it's confidential, this press release is all we have to go on.
When speaking with the plaintiff's attorney, re: "enabled," he referred back to the settlement agreement and said it’s unambiguous that LSAC must make available a test for all without Logic Games.
The idea of enabling it, i.e. making it available for all (not requiring it for all) is derived from the fact that the lawsuit is about giving Binno equal opportunity to take an exam that does not discriminate due to disability, i.e. he must be allowed to take an exam without Logic Games.
Plaintiff's attorney was never directly concerned with fundamentally changing the exam for everyone - that was a side effect of the settlement. Rather, he's concerned with LSAC providing an equal playing field for Binno and others - that seems to be why he used the word "enabled" specifically.
I guess the question now is how LSAC acts moving forward - whether they act in accordance with the plaintiff's attorney's interpretation of the settlement agreement.
He did say outright that according to the settlement, LSAC must make available a test for all law school applicants within 4 years (by October 2023) that does not have the current Logic Games section.
I directly asked him about that also - could LSAC spend the next 4 years researching, then change the exam at some undefined point after that?
I directly asked him about that also - could LSAC spend the next 4 years researching, then change the exam at some undefined point after that?
He said they must actually offer a new test without the current Logic Games section within 4 years, not just research potential changes during that time.
Again, we'd have to refer back to the settlement for clarification, but we don't have access to it.
The press release is frustratingly ambiguous! And there's no question that the attorney's comments differ substantially from the press release with regard to exactly must happen within the next 4 years (research vs. actual changes within that timeframe).
The press release is frustratingly ambiguous! And there's no question that the attorney's comments differ substantially from the press release with regard to exactly must happen within the next 4 years (research vs. actual changes within that timeframe).
What confuses things further is that LSAC's emailed statement also differs from the joint statement; it only discusses research and does not reference any commitment or obligation to change the exam content at all:
"Should there be any significant changes to format...."
It seems to me that LSAC's statement is more open-ended and less committed than the joint statement (could just be spin/fluff), while the attorney's seems to indicate that LSAC is more committed with regard to tangible outcomes.
Only time will tell...
The plaintiff's attorney was quite adamant that LSAC's email announcement contradicted the press release - in LSAC's email, they indicate that they've only committed themselves to researching potential changes to the exam, rather than actually committing themselves to making changes, i.e. removing Logic Games.
The plaintiff's attorney was quite adamant that LSAC's email announcement contradicted the press release - in LSAC's email, they indicate that they've only committed themselves to researching potential changes to the exam, rather than actually committing themselves to making changes, i.e. removing Logic Games.
And I'm inclined to agree that the tone of the LSAC's email and that of the PR statement differ substantially.
LSAC's emailed statement says only:
"Should there be any significant changes to format...."
Rather than that there WILL be significant changes, i.e. "will enable all prospective law students to take an exam administered by LSAC that does not have the current AR section..."
Enabling all students to take an exam without AR vs. requiring all students to take an exam without AR...that's another question altogether... :)
No comments:
Post a Comment