The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
DEI Discrimination at the Harvard Law Review
An exposé at the Washington Free Beacon reveals thorough DEI corruption at the Harvard Law Review. As summarized by author Aaron Sibarium, "the Harvard Law Review has made DEI the 'first priority' of its admissions process. It routinely kills or advances pieces based on the author's race. It even vets articles for racially diverse citations."
I had to chuckle at this one: "In a section titled 'Why should they write the foreword?', one 2024 spreadsheet stated that Shirin Sinnar, a professor at Stanford Law School, would be 'the first hijabi, Muslim woman to write the Foreword.'" I mean… lots of tiny American religious demographics, including ones that have faced significant discrimination, have never had a member of their group write the Foreword, and I don't see why that matters. I doubt HLR has had an Elder of the Mormon Church, a Hasidic Jew, a Jehovah's Witness, a Turban-wearing and sword-wielding Sikh, an Assyrian Christian, a member of an Amish community, a Pentecostal snake-handler, and so on, write the prestigious annual Foreword. The lack of self-awareness about confusing the current obsessions of the woke left with something akin to "diversity" is both shocking and not surprising.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
It's almost as if putting students in charge of academic journals is a bad idea.
No, students who arent ideological fanatics can run law journals just fine
The faculty are also ideological fanatics.
People don’t need your approval to run a journal. Don’t like it? Don’t read it.
Say what you mean, Rabbi. “If you disagree with something ignore it, but criticism is unacceptable.” See, not hard.
It is. Serious academic journals do not allow "shopping submissions.
Obama says hi
About the only thing he said in the Review
Discrimination, Evasion, and Idiocy in action!
These people are fanatics. Cheryl Harris in Whiteness as Property praised the constitution of south africa.
In their view the constitution countenance sinecures for certain races and expropriation of others in perpetuity. They must be kept out of power at all costs.
"Corruption" seems like a hyperbolic word if we're talking about a student-run publication's desire to include more diverse authors in its output. A reasonable argument can be made that a journal that includes perspectives from many different backgrounds is making a greater contribution to legal academia.
Sure, so long as your definition of reasonable includes the KKK's reasonable arguments against blacks or the Nazi's reasonable arguments against Jews. Not sure I'm willing to consider any of that reasonable but you do you.
I’m not sure the comparison to the KKK is altogether sensible
it was a DemoKKKrat run organization (See Byrd, Robert, Senator (WVA)
You think DEI isn't racist?
Racist: "characterized by or showing prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
Unless you're going for disparate impact, I'm not seeing racist.
persistent 'disparate impact' is one piece of evidence though it is not dispositive
"discrimination.....against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group"
includes preferring a race P member over a race Q member, in any circumstance, because of race. How does the D in DEI work without doing this ? Or does that D exclude D as to race ?
The KKK and Nazi comparison doesn't hold up. Those groups do are not trying to increase diversity, they are trying to exclude everyone but one demographic. The Harvard Law Review wants people of many different demographics. If they wanted to ONLY publish articles from Muslim women and exclude everyone else, then maybe your comparison would be . . . well, it still wouldn't be a great comparison, but let's say that it would be less frivolous.
It's still racism. When your only consideration is race, you're racist. When you make excuses for it and still do it, it only means you're embarrassed at being racist. It doesn't make you less racist or a better racist, it just makes you a hypocritical racist.
I mean, you're just making up a definition of racism now.
I also don't think it's established the only consideration is race.
I'm not saying it's a good policy - at first blush it seems pretty facile to me - but you're stretching terms so you can call someone else racist for a change.
You seem really stoked, actually. I count 7 uses of race or racism in a 43 word post.
Um, no, racism has an actual definition: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism against someone because they belong to a racial or ethnic group. So selecting or not selecting someone based on ethnicity or race is not racist unless it is driven by prejudicial, discriminatory, or antagonistic intent. In this particular case, the reason for the selection wasn’t because of prejudice against white people. Rather, the reason seems to be that they want to have a diverse group of authors. You may not agree with that goal, but it doesn’t fit the definition of racism.
You do realize that definition was specifically crafted to permit Democrats to discriminate all day long, and pretend they're not racist, right? It really boils down to, "So long as we claim positive motives, we can do anything!"
Back in the real world of course, Bob doesn't care if you say you discriminated against him or say it was actually in favor of Peter, he just cares that he didn't get the job because of his race.
that definition was specifically crafted
Disparate impact, but also with a liberal semantic conspiracy to get there.
So selecting or not selecting someone based on ethnicity or race is not racist unless it is driven by prejudicial, discriminatory, or antagonistic intent.
It's racist by the very definition you give. If you select someone based on ethnicity or race, you are necessarily driven by a discriminatory intent. That's what discrimination means. You discriminate on the basis of ..... whatever you use as your criterion for choosing X over Y. If that's race, you're racist.
In this particular case, the reason for the selection wasn’t because of prejudice against white people. Rather, the reason seems to be that they want to have a diverse group of authors.
But when the time came to select author X rather than author Y (or Z etc) the criterion for selection was ..... race ! Smack in the middle of your own definition.
English note - "prejudicial, discriminatory or antagonistic intent" means " prejudicial OR discriminatory OR antagonistic intent." There's no "and" in there.
And there's a reason for that. If you use an "and" you will exclude a lot of stuff that lefties want to treat as racism.
Sorry Lee, you are incorrect. None of those terms, including "discrimination," carries the neutral meaning you want to ascribe, of "consideration of race." Considering race is not racism. It's not discrimination. It's just saying, race is a thing.
Race is a thing. The only people pretending it's not are racists trying to cover up their racism. This is known.
None of those terms, including "discrimination," carries the neutral meaning you want to ascribe, of "consideration of race." Considering race is not racism. It's not discrimination. It's just saying, race is a thing.
No. First “consideration of race” is not the meaning I am “ascribing”. Discrimination involves dividing a class of objects into different categories according to some categorizing criterion, in this case race. To discriminate on the basis of race is not merely to consider that race is a thing, but to act differently to persons of race A and race B, because of your categorization of them into races.
Second, discrimination carries the entirely neutral meaning described in 1b below. The 1a meaning which has been wokily promoted above 1b, is simply a special case of 1b – where the categorical discrimination is based on prejudice.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discrimination
“1a - prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment
1b - the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually”
“discrimination” can be applied to objects, or abstractions, of all kinds. It is not limited to people. Nobody is “prejudiced” against apples when they decline to call them citrus fruits.
Third, the “prejudicial” take on discrimination doesn’t help you, even if I accepted it. Consider a business, or a club, or an organization or a school, which values not diversity but uniformity (or homogeneity.) It thinks conformity, the maintenance of a co-operative culture, and the reduction of internal conflict are most important and so seeks to create and maintain a body of members who are uniform. Applied to race, this means – say – keeping the membership 100% Maori. Or Native American. Or Indian. Or Black. Or White.
When this organization – and lets take the last one (the White one) – rejects Black or Chinese members / employees on account of their not being White, it is discriminating on the basis of race. Race is the criterion of discrimination. But not for any reasons of prejudice against people who are not White – but simply because it values uniformity. If it was composed of Javanese, it would try to keep Whites out, on the same principle.
But no supporter of anti discrimination laws would accept this for a moment. Bostock would be deployed instantly – if the criterion of discrimination is race (or sex etc) it’s an automatic fail.
Sikhs do not "wield" "swords". They carry a short, ceremonial dagger that is to be kept sheathed at all times, and in modern contexts almost always modified to be impossible to draw.
I get that you want to be flip because you're writing a post about goofy-ass DEI bullshit written by dumb teenagers, but you could at least not be an asshole about cultures you know nothing about.
Imagine if someone wrote a piece that used Jews at university as part of the punchline to a joke and called a tefillah a "space box", a kippah a "beanie", and payot "a dreadlock". You'd view that as evidence of anti-semitism on America's college campuses and you'd tee off on it immediately.
Khannn!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think he was a Sikh
Frank
Google AI says: "In Sikhism, the kirpan is a mandatory symbol of faith, a small sword or dagger, worn by initiated (Amritdhari) Sikhs as a reminder of their commitment to justice, charity, and service to humanity. "
That really doesn't support your point as much as you must think it does.
His point being a definition of what a Sikh must carry can be a sword--albeit a small one. Someone contested his view by saying they don't carry a sword and insisted it was just a dagger.
I think David made his point quite clearly regarding a semantical argument.
Are there teenagers on the Harvard Law Review?
It’s like Mrs Dean Wormer explaining
“Sensual” and “Sensuous” to Otter, I can never remember which is which
Harvard today is full of complaints about how Trump is authoritarian, and maybe the next Hitler. I wonder if these Harvard editors even realize how they are imposing their views on others.
Who are they imposing their views on?
They are imposing their views on the staff and readers of the journal.
They are expressing their views, not imposing them. Indeed that is why they aspire to the august platform to begin with. They are not interested in learning so much as teaching, precisely because they already know what everyone else needs to know by virtue of their “demographic.”
" so much as teaching"
I would have chosen a rhyming word, "preaching."
"DEI corruption" is a curious term. Here, it seems that DEI is used as part of the process. Sort of like "conservatives pro-Trump people corrupt this website" or something.
That is, if conservatives pro-Trump people are seen as horrible as "DEI" (diversity, inclusion, and equity, which can be any number of things) in the mind of some.
One passage of the piece notes:
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 horror.
Well, some of us still believe racism is horrible.
This is a pretty broad definition of racism. I'll grant reasonable minds could call it discrimination. But racism doesn't fit at all.
Unless you want to adopt the Critical Theory structural disparate impacts are racism paradigm?
That is what they use -- but only for white people. Disparate impacts against others are instead treated as evidence of their inferiority.
That is what they use -- but only for white people.
I had not really noticed before but it sure seems you're right.
Sarcastro : This is a pretty broad definition of racism. I'll grant reasonable minds could call it discrimination. But racism doesn't fit at all.
Good one 🙂
The definition you yourself provided in this thread stated that "discrimination.....against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group" is racism.
From 1955-2018 (63 years), almost every foreword was written by someone white. Since 2018 (7 years), almost every foreword has been written by someone non-white.
That does sound unbalanced, but not in the way this blog post implies.
+1
It means that the editors have turned anti-white. And probably opposed to some other groups as well.
So, the solution to past discrimination is future discrimination?
Yes! (HT M. Albert)
Did Barry Hussein get to write 1/2 of one?
and "Der Sturmer" had a great Sunday Crossword Puzzle
I'm pretty liberal, but this is not as good a look as you think it is.
fair enough.
I doubt HLR has had an Elder of the Mormon Church, a Hasidic Jew, a Jehovah's Witness, a Turban-wearing and sword-wielding Sikh, an Assyrian Christian, a member of an Amish community, a Pentecostal snake-handler, and so on, write the prestigious annual Foreword.
I know some very orthodox Jews who have risen to the sort of eminence in the legal profession to be a plausible candidate to write the Foreword. If you have a list of Pentecostal snake-handlers, etc. who fit the bill, please let us and the HLR know.
You miss the point completely. It's not that there aren't Orthodox Jews, or Mormons, or Sikhs that are worthy of this honor of writing the Forward. It is also entirely possible that Sinnar herself is worthy - the point is that this isn't why she was selected (or at least, not the reason given for her selection). They could have said "Sinanr should write the Forward because she is a distinguished professor at Stanford Law School and has risen to eminence in the legal profession " Instead, thye selected her because "she would be 'the first hijabi, Muslim woman to write the Foreword."
Almost but no cigar....that was why the remarkably incompetent Ketanji Brown was selected. Until we are truly picking people by worth we will HAVE TO say that the choice of them is enhanced by the fact they are such-and-such social group...which of course is most cases a government-defined label anyway. Yes, Sen Warren was .01% Cherokee or whatever but that is my point
I didn't miss DB's point, I made a different one -- which you missed completely. In order to get any kind of consideration for writing the HLR Foreword, you already have to be at a certain level of eminence, which a distinguished professor at Stanford Law School would be, pretty much by definition. I have no doubt that her being a hijabi Muslim woman made her stand out among the pool of plausible candidates and it might well have made a big difference. But the point is that she was legitimately in the pool in the first place. I asked for examples of snake-handlers, etc., who are legitimately in the pool and were overlooked. I'm still waiting. (I can think of a Mormon, though likely not an elder, who would have been in the pool if he weren't dead. If someone were advocating for Rex Lee, former SG and law school dean, as a potential author when he wasn't dead, it would have been fair game to point out -- if it's true -- that he would be the first Mormon to write the Foreword.) Maybe you think that's a bad thing. I don't, but pointing out various religious or other minorities that haven't gotten the gig doesn't advance the ball unless you can identify otherwise plausible candidates -- like Professor Sinnar.
If she is already legitimately in the pool in the first place, what difference does her wearing a hijab have? Does it make her legal thought more profound?
Would you have reflected similarly on an hypothetical recommendation of a legal scholar because he or she is the first such nominee to wear pink striped underwear? to have six toes? to have gone to summer camp in the Catskills?
Her religion and dress preference has absolutely no relevance here, yet it is the ONLY characteristic called out, which raises a reasonable assumption that of the pool of candidates, she was selected over others because of DEI, not merit.
I don't know enough about Pentecostal snake-handlers, but there are plenty of other religious and ethnic minorities who ARE law professors who would be the first in their demographic group - from Rhonda Magee (USF, Zen Spiritual leader) to Leonard Riskin (Florida, Buddhist) to Sarah Deer (Kanas, Creek Indian), If you want a list of 100 such candidates, I am sure ChatGot could provide you with one on less than a minute
I refer you to Randal's comment below, and would recommend some self-examination (possibly assisted by some professional) into why this agitates you so much.
We are the ones who need help because we question the motives of assigning the Foreward to someone whose qualifications are listed as dress choice and religion?
I, however, applaud you on your willingness to accept the situation for what it is, discriminatory. You have a problem with how we feel about discrimination. MLK loves your advice that our reaction is the problem.
We are the ones who need help...
Yes. Even if that were true (religion being listed as a "qualification")... why do you care who writes forwards? Lots of people are selected to write lots of forwards for all kinds of reasons. Interesting religious fashion is probably one of the better ones.
If it were true. Which is the second reason you need help. You're so eager to rile yourself up that you're willing to make up facts. Find a therapist. Stat!
An Elder of the Mormon Church, a Hasidic Jew, a Jehovah's Witness, a Turban-wearing and sword-wielding Sikh, an Assyrian Christian, a member of an Amish community, a Pentecostal snake-handler, walk into a Seafood Restaurant...
Elder asks "Do you serve Crabs here?"
Waiter says, "We serve anyone!"
Frank
Jeffrey Sachs refutes Bernstein's view that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.
https://youtu.be/4JSyq288HtU?si=pPkKPx2MoaUUbtnl
I am not going to watch a video on YouTube. If you want to offer quotes referencing the video, I will read them.
Zionism is the belief that Jews have a right to a Jewish state. If you honestly believe Jews should be subjugated to a much newer and stridently anti-Jewish faction like the Palestinians, you are antisemitic. Period. You can't proclaim your are not antisemitic while also saying Israel shouldn't exist.
You should see the Catholic seminary where I taught. Called in for teaching the Church position on Inerrancy, then called in because a teacher with a grant to teach evolution found one paragraph in a Bible text I was using that questioned transitional forms.
Oh David, don't be such a philistine. The construction "the first ethnic religious gender to do X" is just a way to casually introduce and celebrate a person's ethnicity, religion, and gender, especially when said attributes aren't as clear (to mainstream audiences) from the author's name compared to something like David Bernstein. You don't need to get jealous. It's not an accolade. No honorific is bestowed. It doesn't come with a stipend.
You might think it's inappropriate to mention an author's ethnicity, religion, or gender at all, but that's just the soft bigotry of taking cultural assimilation as a premise.
No group receives more deference at the Harvard Law Review than white racial supremacist genocide-supporting Zionists. The Ongoing Nakba: Toward a Legal Framework for Palestine is a case in point.
From the article.