Duke University’s law journal handed minority applicants insider help in selecting their next crop of editors, betraying fairness and merit. This troubling revelation shows how a once‑prestigious competition tipped scales by race and gender.
The journal circulated a packet exclusively to affinity groups detailing how “membership in an underrepresented group” could earn applicants “up to 10 points,” plus another “3‑5 points” for “leadership in an affinity group.” One student wrote, “[a]s an Asian‑American woman and a daughter of immigrants, I am afforded with different perspectives …” while another boasted her identity as “a Middle Eastern Jewish woman” would “prove useful.” These are direct quotes from the packet.
Professor David Bernstein rightly called it “clearly illegal,” explaining “They’re using the personal statement as a proxy for race.” The scheme sidestepped the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action by locking this guidance behind closed doors—another form of discrimination.
The journal’s editor‑in‑chief, a former diversity consultant, further blurred lines between diversity ideology and legal standards. Erin Wilcox of Pacific Legal Foundation emphasized that “both the Constitution and Title VI require individuals to be judged on their own unique qualifications, not on immutable characteristics like race or sex.” Schools must stop gaming admissions with race‑based rubrics.
This isn’t meritocracy—it’s manipulation. Fairness demands judging students on ideas, not skin color. As Wilcox warned, “individuals [must] be judged on their own unique qualifications.”
