Washington Free Beacon (Aaron Sibarium), Internal Documents Reveal Pervasive Pattern of Racial Discrimination at Harvard Law Review:

Will this law review article "promote DEI values"? Does it cite scholars from "underrepresented groups"? Will it have "any foreseeable impact in enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion"? And why did one team of editors solicit "only white, male authors"?

Those are some of the questions that editors at the Harvard Law Review asked in internal documents obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The documents, which span more than four years and have not been previously reported, include article evaluations, training materials, and data on the race and gender of journal authors. They reveal a pattern of pervasive race discrimination at the nation’s top law journal and threaten to plunge Harvard, already at war with the federal government, into even deeper crisis.

The law review states on its website that it considers race only in the context of an applicant’s personal statement. But according to dozens of documents obtained by the Free Beacon—including lists of every new policy adopted by the law review since 2021—race plays a far larger role in the selection of both editors and articles than the journal has publicly acknowledged.

Just over half of journal members, for example, are admitted solely based on academic performance. The rest are chosen by a "holistic review committee" that has made the inclusion of "underrepresented groups"—defined to include race, gender identity, and sexual orientation—its "first priority," according to resolution passed in 2021.

The law review has also incorporated race into nearly every stage of its article selection process, which as a matter of policy considers "both substantive and DEI factors." Editors routinely kill or advance pieces based in part on the race of the author, according to eight different memos reviewed by the Free Beacon, with one editor even referring to an author’s race as a "negative" when recommending that his article be cut from consideration.

"This author is not from an underrepresented background," the editor wrote in the "negatives" section of a 2024 memo. The piece, which concerned criminal procedure and police reform, did not make it into the issue.

Such policies have had a major effect on the demographics of published scholars. Since 2018, according to data compiled by the journal, only one white author, Harvard’s Michael Klarman, has been chosen to write the foreword to the law review’s Supreme Court issue, arguably the most prestigious honor in legal academia. The rest—with the exception of Jamal Greene, who is black—have been minority women.

That pattern is a stark departure from the historical norm. Between 1995 and 2018, the data show, nearly every foreword author was white.

Harvard sued the Trump administration on Monday after the government froze more than $2 billion in grants and contracts to the school. University president Alan Garber said last week that Harvard had no intention of complying with a sweeping set of demands from the White House’s anti-Semitism task force, including "merit-based admission reform" and an end to all diversity programs.

The documents from the law review could create a new line of attack for the administration as the fight over federal funding escalates, and invite litigation from private plaintiffs eager to join the pile-on. …

At least one attorney is already planning to sue Harvard over the law review’s policies. Jonathan Mitchell, the former Texas solicitor general, told the Free Beacon that he is preparing complaints against both Harvard and the law review based in part on the documents.

Washington Free Beacon, Inside the Pervasive Pattern of Racial Discrimination at Harvard Law Review:

Writing the foreward to the Harvard Law Review's Supreme Court issue is arguably the most prestigious honor in legal academia. Since 2018, only one white author has penned it—and that's no coincidence, according to internal documents obtained by our Aaron Sibarium.

They show that race "plays a far larger role in the selection of both editors and articles than the journal has publicly acknowledged." When soliciting and evaluating articles, for example, editors have asked whether a submission will "promote DEI values," cite scholars from "underrepresented groups," and have "any foreseeable impact in enhancing diversity, equity, and inclusion."

Harvard Law Record, Allegations and Threats of Litigation in Ominous End-of-Year E-Mail:

On Friday night at 10:38 PM, the final day of courses at HLS for the academic year, a pair of emails appeared in the inbox of every student at Harvard Law School entitled “Litigation-hold e-mail” and “Advice for the Harvard Law Review’s personal statement.” Joseph Kline, HLS ‘25, shared two missives with the entire student body, claiming that each “went to my spam folder, but it seems important, so I’m forwarding it.”

The first email alleges that Harvard Law Review’s admissions process awards “discriminatory preferences” to marginalized classes and announces that Faculty, Alumni, & Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP) intends to sue the Law Review and the University for these practices. The second email makes further allegations against the the law journal and encourages students to make false representations as to their respective identities to circumvent the application process. On its website, FASORP describes itself as a “voluntary membership organization that litigates against race and sex preferences in academia.” …

While not specifically referred to in the emails, the messages come hours after the Washington Free Beacon published an exclusive on the journal’s admissions practices, including several confidential documents with identifying information of a number of editors. The article characterized the Law Review’s prioritization of including underrepresented voices as “a pattern of pervasive race discrimination.” The article also noted that Jonathan Mitchell, former Texas solicitor general and architect of the novel enforcement mechanism in the Texas Heartbeat Act (also known as SB 8), planned to sue Harvard Law Review and Harvard University.

“It’s very disheartening and disturbing to know that someone in our community leaked highly confidential information” remarked one Harvard Law Review editor from the class of 2025 speaking in their individual capacity. “It creates distrust and fear and is wholly against our principles of trust and transparency.” The editor further acknowledged that “based on reliable evidence,” they have identified an individual from the class of 2025 who leaked the information to those who orchestrated the email, and that the leaker has put several editors at risk by releasing their full names to those behind this endeavor.

• David Bernstein (George Mason; Google Scholar), DEI Discrimination at the Harvard Law Review
• Harvard Crimson, Harvard Law School Dean of Students Condemns ‘Disturbing’ Mass Emails Sent to Students After Law Review Controversy

Editor's Note:  If you would like to receive a daily email with links to legal education posts on TaxProf Blog, email me here.