Well that’s precisely what the Trump administration has recently started investigating Harvard University and its prestigious Law Review for. They’ve frozen $2.2 billion of federal grants based on concerns over antisemitism and claims of discriminatory practices. The investigation has led to a public firestorm of letters, accusations and insults between the university and the administration. It comes after complaints that the Harvard Law Review is basing article selection on authors’ race rather than article quality.
The Department of Education and the Department of Health & Human Services made their joint investigations public. This came on the heels of a story from The Washington Free Beacon, a right-leaning news website. The report cited comments from a Law Review editor who expressed concern over the racial demographics of those seeking to respond to an article about police reform. To the editor, it was “worrisome” that four of five people wanting to work on it were white males.
These allegations drew a strong denial from Craig Trainor, the Education Department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights. He reiterated that Title VI forbids all recipients of federal financial assistance – including transit agencies – from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin. He emphasized that no institution is above the law, insisting that the Trump administration will not tolerate violations of civil rights.
“Harvard Law Review’s article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission.” – Craig Trainor
The Trump administration’s argument would require Harvard to repeal and replace diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. They demand the university to screen international students for ideological biases. This comes in the wake of protracted tensions between Harvard and the Trump administration related to funding cuts and policy rollbacks. Harvard has repeatedly come under fire for their discriminatory claims in the past. A comparable suit against the university itself was thrown out by a U.S. District Court in 2018.
The animus against the Harvard Law Review is hardly more recent. Deep historical context Trump’s appointed editor, Andrew Rosenthal, is the son of the last leader of that publication, Arthur O. Obama would go on to be the first black student elected president of the Harvard Law Review in 1990. Recent practices have come under fire for eroding meritocracy itself.
The Free Beacon’s article comes back with the killer stat—only 52% of Law Review members are admitted based on grades alone. Meanwhile, an appointed “holistic review committee” of faculty and community members chooses the rest, prioritizing inclusion of candidates based on race, gender identity and sexual orientation.
“Title VI’s demands are clear: recipients of federal financial assistance may not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin.” – Craig Trainor
In response to the draft guidance AHA, Kelly deGonia, a spokesperson for Harvard Law School urged a focus on the law. IV and V, that Harvard will undertake diligent investigation of any credible allegation of violation. The university is under intense scrutiny to respond to these charges and walk the line between these efforts and its 30-year-old commitments to diversity and inclusion.
As the lawsuits continue on, each side has doubled down on their respective viewpoints. The Trump administration has taken a very aggressive stance to root out what they see as discrimination. Harvard continues to focus on advancing inclusivity and diversity within its pedagogy.
Leave a Reply