At the September 30 hearing, the defendants argued for the first time that ABA Interpretation 203-1 does not bind the University because it says a dean “should not” be appointed over the stated objection of a substantial majority of the faculty, rather than “shall not.” I responded that Interpretation 203-1 states what the mandatory requirement of Standard 203(c) means when the faculty objects, that its good-cause exception confirms it is a rule, and that the ABA’s own rules and the University’s Employee Code treat Interpretations as binding requirements.