In many states, the Left has taken control of the legal profession, and one aspect of that is found in mandates that attorneys devote some of their Continuing Legal Education time to, what else, “diversity.”

Now, CLE itself is perfectly useless. Attorneys have very strong incentives to be as up-to-date as possible on everything that could affect their practice areas. But now, it’s more than just a waste of time in states that insist that attorneys spend time learning about diversity, equity, and inclusion theories.

A proposal has been advanced in Rhode Island to include “diversity” in the CLE mandate, and Cornell law professor William Jacobson here provides his case against it.

Here is the professor’s conclusion:

As reflected above, there are many good arguments against mandating DEI coursework as part of the MCLE requirement to maintain membership in the Rhode Island Bar. A strong case can be made that DEI is an ineffective group-identity ideology that frequently normalizes discrimination in the name of equity, leading to substantial pushback and political debate. The Court should not mandate that attorneys take a DEI program to retain their Bar membership. We suggest that whatever benefits DEI allegedly holds can be achieved by voluntary study, not mandatory CLE coursework. For the foregoing reasons, I oppose the proposed Amendment.

Lawyers might keep Jacobson’s arguments in mind.

The problem is not really that attorneys are likely to be turned into raving DEI zealots by some mandatory CLE training. This is just another of the countless ways the Left creates make-work for its friends.