Apparently this just happened; here is the full standard from the American Bar Association (and see this article from the ABA Journal):
Standard 208: Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression
[a] A law school must adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies that protect academic freedom. A law school’s academic freedom policies must:
[1] Apply to all full-time and part-time faculty, as well as all others who teach law school courses;
[2] Apply to conduct research, publish scholarship, engage in law school governance, participate in law-related public service activities, curate library collections and provide information services, and exercise teaching responsibilities, including those related to client representation in clinical programs; AND
[3] Give yourself due process, such as notice, hearing, and appeal rights, to evaluate any complaint of violations of academic freedom policies.
[b]A law school must adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies that encourage and support the free expression of ideas. A law school’s free expression policies must:
[1] Protect the rights of faculty, students, and staff to communicate ideas that may be controversial or unpopular, including through robust debate, demonstrations, or protests; AND
[2] Proscribe destructive behavior that impedes free expression by substantially impeding or interfering with the performance of law school functions or approved activities, such as classes, meetings, library services, interviews, ceremonies, and public events;
[c] Consistent with this standard, a law school may:
[1] Restrict expression that violates the law, falsely defames a specific individual, constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, or unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests.
[2] Reasonably regulate time, place and manner of expression.
[3] Adopt policies on academic freedom and free expression that reflect the mission of the law school, including a religious mission, to the extent that such policies are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and are clearly disclosed in writing to all faculty , students and staff prior to their affiliation with the law school.
Interpretation 208-1[:] Standard 208 applies to both public and private law schools.
Interpretation 208-2[:] A law school may, where appropriate, differentiate between students, faculty, and staff in its free speech policies.
Interpretation 208-3[:] Standard 208(a) does not prevent a law school from identifying the courses that will be taught, from requiring that courses cover particular content, or from requiring faculty, students, or staff to clarify in appropriate circumstances that their opinions are not statements of or on behalf of the Faculty of Law.
Interpretation 208-4[:] This Standard does not prevent a law school from applying disciplinary action for conduct identified in Standard 208(b)(2).
Interpretation 208-5[:] Subsection (c) recognizes that law schools may restrict speech consistent with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Interpretation 208-6[:] Effective legal education and the development of the law requires the free, robust and uninhibited sharing of ideas that reflect a wide range of points of view. To become an effective advocate or consultant, you must learn to conduct forthright, civil discourse in respectful disagreement with others, making reasoned, evidence-based arguments. Concerns about civility and mutual respect, however, do not justify banning the discussion of ideas because they are controversial or even offensive or distasteful to some.
[From the accompanying Report:] … In the background, but not influencing the creation of Standard 208, were the widely publicized disruption of a speech at Stanford Law School in March 2023 and a letter that month to the Board from the Committee on Education and U.S. House workforce requesting the Council to investigate Stanford Law School’s compliance with Standard 405(b)….