Newly uncovered documents confirm what many have suspected: the Harvard Law Review is actively using race-based criteria to decide what legal scholarship gets published. Despite publicly denying that race, gender, or other protected characteristics influence editorial decisions, internal memos obtained by the Washington Free Beacon show a clear pattern of ideological and racial favoritism—often at the expense of merit.
Editors at the prestigious journal used a rubric that explicitly favored “author diversity” and “DEI values” to screen out more than 85 percent of submissions in 2024. At least 40 percent of the law review’s 104 editors cited race or gender when recommending for or against a piece. One Asian-American scholar, Alex Zhang, saw his article rejected after a meeting where an editor complained the journal had “too many Yale JDs and not enough Black and Latino/Latina authors.” The editor admitted, “We shouldn’t be checking a box… just something to be mindful of.”
Contrary to claims made by the law review on May 27—stating it does not “consider race, ethnicity, gender, or any other protected characteristic”—documents show repeated attempts to elevate articles based on the race of the author or even the cited sources. One piece was praised because “it cites a Kendrick song in the Conclusion!” while others were penalized for quoting “too many old white men.”
Another editor downgraded an article because it only used the word “Black” seven times—two of which were deemed irrelevant to race.
A former editor bluntly described the journal’s final article vote meetings as a “face-off between the radical left and the Federalist Society,” adding, “The radical left usually wins.”
This DEI-driven corruption of academic integrity has triggered three federal probes. As the Trump administration pushes back on affirmative action, Harvard Law Review now finds itself a high-profile example of what happens when ideological activism replaces scholarly merit.
