Harvard Law Review (HLR) is pushing back against allegations that it factors race and gender into its article selection process. The rebuttal follows a report by the Washington Free Beacon claiming that internal documents suggest some editors considered authors’ demographic characteristics when deciding which pieces to publish.

The Free Beacon obtained internal HLR memos that allegedly show the use of a “Rotopool rubric” during the early stages of the selection process. According to the report, the rubric includes questions about an author’s race and other protected characteristics and is used to eliminate roughly 85 percent of submissions.

The outlet reviewed 461 memos from 2024 and found 61 instances where editors discussed the race or gender of sources, as well as six instances involving authors themselves. In total, 42 editors, i.e., about 40 percent of the journal’s 104-member staff, were said to have considered race or gender in their recommendations.

One cited example involved the rejection of a piece by an Asian American scholar after an editor remarked, “We have too many Yale JDs and not enough Black and Latino/Latina authors.”

Read More: Improving Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion In Your Workplace

Harvard Pushes Back

In response, Harvard University released a three-page fact sheet rejecting the allegations. The law review stated that it “does not consider race, ethnicity, gender, or any other protected characteristic as a basis for recommending or selecting a piece for publication.”

The HLR argued that the Free Beacon selectively quoted only five memos spanning more than three years and emphasized that author identities are not revealed during the initial review stage. Editors are instructed not to seek out or inquire about an author’s demographic information.

“Recent news reports have mischaracterized the role that individual editor memos play in the article selection process, but the process involves all editors on the Review,” the fact sheet said, stressing that publication decisions involve all editors collectively. The law review also noted that it is reviewing its internal guidance to ensure editors avoid any perception of bias in the process.

Also Read: Time to Recommit to DEI: Brands Must Lead with Purpose

Legal Questions Loom

While Harvard disputes the claims, legal experts suggest the matter could raise federal nondiscrimination law concerns. The Executive Director of the American Civil Rights Project, Dan Morenoff, told The College Fix that the key issue is whether the law review is functionally part of Harvard University.

Although the HLR is formally independent, Morenoff noted that it operates in Harvard facilities, benefits from university services and security, and receives financial support. This connection could lead courts to view the law review as a sub-recipient of Harvard’s federal funding, making it subject to Title VI and Title IX, which prohibit discrimination based on race and sex in federally funded programs.

“Should the statutes reach HLR, they probably are violating them,” Morenoff said. He also noted that any race-based author selection could violate Section 1981, which prohibits race-based contracting decisions.

For now, Harvard maintains that its editorial process is merit-based, but the scrutiny over the law review’s practices highlights how academic publishing is increasingly under the lens of diversity and nondiscrimination debates.

Follow more news and views via our Social Governance and Featured Articles sections, and stay updated on top ESG events to attend in 2025 for industry insights and networking.

Source: THE COLLEGE FIX