University of Oregon Concludes Law Review "Discriminat[ed] Based on Perceived National Origin" Against Israeli Author

From the University of Oregon School of Law's dean Friday:

Dear law community,

In February 2025, a civil rights complaint was filed against the Oregon Law Review (OLR) student organization, based on events that occurred in the 2024 spring semester. In August 2025, the university's Office of Investigations and Civil Rights Compliance completed its investigation and issued a report.

Because of FERPA, this report cannot be shared publicly. That said, we can provide these details: In April 2024, while selecting articles for the 2024-25 Volume 103, the OLR chose not to offer publication to an author who indicated they were faculty at Tel Aviv University. No law school administrators or faculty were involved in this decision. The following month, OLR board members asked a law school administrator to have a conversation with members who were concerned about the process.

After receiving the complaint in February, the university investigated both the OLR and the law school administrator who had the conversation. In early August, the university completed its investigation, finding the law school administrator not responsible for any policy violation. The university did, however, find the OLR responsible for violating University of Oregon policy and the Student Conduct Code. The investigation found that OLR engaged in conduct that, on its face, was discrimination based on perceived national origin. No findings were made about the intent that motivated the conduct.

Because of this finding, the university imposed an Action Plan on the OLR that must be completed by September 19, 2025. The Action Plan consists of the following four Action Items:

• All OLR's student staff, instructors of record, faculty advisors, journal coordinator, and any other member of law school administration who works with OLR, are required to complete an annual discrimination and bias training that is approved by the Office of Investigations and Civil Rights Compliance.
• OLR is required to develop a written procedure about (1) the mechanics of how OLR selects articles for publication, and (2) by what criteria articles are selected for publication, for review and approval by the Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards.
• OLR must invite the author whose article was not offered publication to resubmit the article for publication in the OLR's next volume.
• OLR has been put on a two-year probation during which any subsequent violations will result in progressively more severe outcomes.

As of today (8/22/25), Action Items (2), (3), and (4) have been completed. The training described in Action Item (1) will take place at the end of August. The training will become an annual part of the OLR orientation.

Along with these Action Items, the OLR has decided to add two additional safeguards. First, the OLR will create position descriptions that delineate the responsibilities of law school staff and faculty who work with the OLR, so that support and expectations are more clearly defined. Second, the OLR is putting a more formal process in place for managing disputes that have the possibility of implicating prohibited behavior, such as discrimination or harassment.

Although the current OLR editorial staff had no role in the situation, they are taking the matter seriously and are seeking to make changes that will better the journal, serve our communities, and reflect our shared values. We support their efforts to improve the institutional knowledge and culture of the journal so that future student boards do not take similar actions to those taken in this situation.

Prof. Ofer Raban, who has posted here about the matter before had these reactions (which he sent to the dean and faculty):

Thank you for sending this information.

As someone who is intimately familiar with the facts in this case, and as the person who actually filed the complaint, I find it surprising that the law school administrator involved in the episode was found "not responsible for any policy violation." The conclusion seems irreconcilable with the information I have.

1. Given that FERPA poses no bar for such disclosure, would you be willing to release that part of the investigative report? Any confidential personnel information could be redacted before the release.
2. This discrimination violated a number of laws and regulations—including the university's students' code of conduct. Moreover, it was perpetrated by students who were on full notice that their actions were probably in violation of the law. Nevertheless, they went ahead with it. Did the law school update these students' files in accordance with the investigation's official conclusions?

Needless to say, it is a serious matter when a pedagogic legal institution experiences lawlessness from within. I urge you to deal with this matter firmly and with all the transparency allowed under the law. A contrary approach would send the wrong message to our students, and would only prolong interest in the case.