The Future of Legal Education is at Risk

By Kendall Williams

​

In Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites, Ilya Shapiro explores the failure of law schools—both their students and administrations—to tolerate, let alone embrace, differing opinions. Shapiro is uniquely qualified to speak on this topic, having himself been “canceled” and effectively forced to resign from his position as executive director and senior lecturer at Georgetown Law’s Center for the Constitution.

​

After his appointment, Shapiro tweeted about President Biden’s pledge to nominate a Black woman to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by Justice Stephen Breyer. His intended point was that the most qualified candidate, in his view—Sri Srinivasan, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit—was unfairly excluded by the President’s race and gender criteria.

​

While Shapiro acknowledges his tweet was poorly worded, he could not have anticipated the uproar that followed what, for him, was a routine act: commenting on political and judicial developments. The following day, he awoke to a flood of criticism. Soon, his new position at Georgetown Law was in jeopardy. Students organized protests, and the school launched a months-long investigation. During that time, Shapiro was placed on paid administrative leave as days turned to weeks and weeks to months. Eventually, Georgetown determined that he could retain his position—but by then, Shapiro concluded the situation was untenable. After all he had endured, he felt he could no longer teach candidly or authentically without constant fear of reprisal for an unintentional misstep.

​

Drawing on his personal experience, Shapiro reflects on how such incidents exemplify the broader decline of open discourse in law schools and the erosion of respect for First Amendment principles.

​

Censorship at any educational level is troubling, but in law schools it is especially alarming. Legal education is meant, among other things, to prepare students to advocate zealously for their clients in an adversarial system. To succeed, students must be capable of engaging respectfully with people who hold opposing views. When law schools shame or silence those with differing perspectives—as in Shapiro’s case—the implications for the legal profession are deeply concerning. The law students of today will become the judges, attorneys, legislators, and administrators of tomorrow. They will shape how the rule of law is interpreted, created, and enforced.

​

Although Shapiro’s book starts with his own story, he notes his experience is far from unique. Across the nation, instances of cancellation, shout-downs, and censorship in legal academia are increasingly common. One need look no further than our own state’s flagship law school. In the fall of 2022, the University of North Carolina School of Law’s Federalist Society hosted a speaker from the Alliance Defending Freedom for a talk titled “Con Law: Addressing the Deceits and Deficits of Legal Education.” The event, meant to highlight deficiencies in modern legal education—particularly its neglect of constitutional study and the moral underpinnings of law—ironically became an example of the very problem at which it was aimed to address. 

​

Protesting students lined the walls, held banners, chanted, and mocked the guest speaker, preventing him from completing his remarks. They had been offered ample opportunity for civil dialogue during a Q&A session, but instead chose to silence the speaker and those who wished to hear him. You can read more about the partial shout-down here.

​

Students’ attitudes toward opposing viewpoints often mirror those modeled by their professors. For instance, when UNC’s Federalist Society invited Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart—who successfully argued Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade—few professors attended or engaged with him. One must ask: why would law professors pass up the opportunity to hear from the advocate behind one of the most consequential Supreme Court cases in decades? Such disinterest sends a message to students, reinforcing a culture of intellectual avoidance rather than inquiry.

​

The incidents at UNC Law and the cancellation of Ilya Shapiro are microcosms of a national trend. As Shapiro warns, censorship now pervades law schools across the country. He leaves us with a call to action:

​

“It’s up to employers and alumni, stakeholders and donors, to stand up for fairness and merit, good faith and decency. . . We must embrace real diversity and celebrate the power of debate, dialogue, and disagreement. We must allow ideas to flow freely so our law schools and lawyers can realize their true potential. Nothing less than the health of our democracy is at stake.”

​

UNC’s chapter of the Alumni Free Speech Alliance (UNC AFSA) was formed in 2021 in response to such concerns, not just at the law school, but the university generally. UNC AFSA promotes a campus environment where free expression, robust debate, and diverse viewpoints are not only protected but actively fostered. 

 

Currently, UNC is searching for a new Law School Dean. This is a critical hire for the future of the school. Read our letter to the Chancellor about the opportunities, and risks, here. See a video of Ilya Shapiro’s talk in September, 2025 at UNC here. 

 

We encourage you to respond to Shapiro’s call and get involved. You can stay up to date with UNC AFSA at this link: https://www.uncafsa.org/mailchimp-signup and you can donate to UNC AFSA via this link: https://4agc.com/donation_pages/8a2673de-548c-4bc5-bce5-2f5af19c849d.