In a recent legal filing, a conservative legal group, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP), has accused the University of Michigan’s law review of discriminatory practices in their selection process, specifically alleging bias favoring women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ contributors. This lawsuit, filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, represents another attempt by FASORP to combat what it perceives as racial and gender preferences in academic settings.
FASORP contends that the Michigan Law Review’s current selection process includes race and sex preferences during the evaluation of personal statements and the holistic-review process. The group asserts that this approach directly contravenes both state and federal anti-discrimination laws. The complaint further claims that students who demonstrate conservative beliefs or are involved with groups like the Federalist Society are systematically excluded from participating in the Law Review’s committees, out of fear they may oppose or expose the alleged discriminatory practices.
The charges outlined by FASORP are not isolated incidents. The group, with backing from figures such as conservative attorney Jonathan Mitchell and America First Legal Foundation’s Stephen Miller, has previously initiated lawsuits against other prestigious law reviews, including those at New York University and Northwestern University. The lawsuit against Northwestern remains unresolved.
Central to FASORP’s argument is the claim that the Michigan Law Review has abandoned a commitment to a strict merit-based selection process in favor of what it terms as a “corrupt and illegal scheme” based on race and sex preferences. This multi-step selection process demands applicants submit a personal statement, mini-note, bluebook exercise, note proposal, and first-year grades, yet lacks a standardized method for evaluating these materials. FASORP argues this ambiguity perpetuates discriminatory selections.
The filing also accuses the Michigan Law Review of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by giving preference to racial minorities, despite its reception of federal funds, which subjects it to anti-discrimination requirements. Additional legal allegations include violating 42 USC Section 1985, 42 USC Section 1981, Title IX, and clauses of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution.
The complaint seeks not only declaratory and injunctive relief but also a halt in federal funding until the Michigan Law Review overhauls its process to eliminate any discriminatory policies. The group requests a judicially approved revised selection process proposal and asks for a court monitor to oversee future selections. Judge Judith E. Levy has been assigned to oversee the case.
Currently, the University of Michigan has not provided a response to the lawsuit. As this case unfolds, it may have significant implications on the practices employed by academic journals nationwide, reflecting ongoing tensions around diversity initiatives in educational institutions.
For those interested in reviewing the full content of the case and its developments, refer to the detailed information provided here.