News Summary

FASORP has filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan and the Michigan Law Review, alleging that straight white men face discrimination in the selection process for the Law Review. The lawsuit claims that the introduction of a ‘Holistic Review Committee’ favors demographic diversity over academic merit. FASORP argues this process violates civil rights regulations and results in systemic exclusion of conservative and straight white male applicants. The University of Michigan denies these claims and intends to defend its diversity practices.

Detroit, MI – A nonprofit organization known as Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP) has filed a lawsuit against the University of Michigan (U-M) and the Michigan Law Review, alleging discrimination against straight white men in the selection process for Law Review staff and article publication. The lawsuit comes amidst a broader national conversation about diversity and affirmative action in higher education institutions.

The controversy revolves around FASORP’s claims that the Michigan Law Review has deviated from a merit-based selection process that historically relied on first-year student grades and performance in writing competitions. The organization accuses the Law Review of implementing a “Holistic Review Committee” that prioritizes demographic diversity over academic merit, thus allegedly disadvantaging straight white men in the selection process.

According to the legal complaint, the selection process now includes submissions of personal essays in which students identify their race, sex, and sexual orientation—actions that FASORP contends violate current civil rights regulations. The organization claims that committee members manipulate the review process to ensure a diverse membership, which they argue results in less favorable outcomes for straight white male applicants.

FASORP’s lawsuit references a communication from the U.S. Department of Education that warned universities about potential consequences, including loss of federal funding, if race is a factor in their diversity initiatives. This context adds legal weight to FASORP’s argument against the Michigan Law Review’s current practices, as they argue that any affirmative action measures carried out could be in direct violation of federal guidelines.

The lawsuit specifically states that only 40% of the Law Review staff are selected based on merit, while the remaining candidates are chosen through the controversial holistic review process, which the organization asserts disproportionately favors women, non-Asian racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ students. FASORP states that conservative students also face systemic exclusion from the selection process for the Holistic Review Committee and various editorial positions. This exclusion is presented as a violation of equal access to selection criteria.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include three straight white male professors from accredited law schools and one straight white male law student who is actively seeking membership in the Law Review. They assert that the alleged racial and gender preferences embedded in the selection process hinder their ability to compete fairly.

In response to the allegations, the University of Michigan has firmly denied any wrongdoing. U-M officials maintain that the institution is committed to adhering to legal standards in its diversity practices and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit’s claims.

This lawsuit is not the first of its kind initiated by FASORP. In 2018, the group filed a similar complaint against the Harvard Law Review, which was dismissed by a court due to a lack of identifiable harmed individuals. The current lawsuit is filed in federal court in Detroit and has been assigned to Judge Judith Levy, a U-M law graduate appointed by the Obama administration.

The context of this legal action reflects ongoing challenges in maintaining university diversity amidst changing legal landscapes and societal pressures. Following the state ban on affirmative action in Michigan in 2006, the racial diversity of enrolled students at U-M has seen a notable decline. For instance, Black student enrollment dropped from 7% to 4%. These changes coincide with recent Supreme Court rulings aimed at limiting race considerations in admissions, posing further challenges for universities striving to balance inclusion with compliance.

As the case progresses, it raises pertinent questions regarding the future of selection practices in academic institutions and how they navigate the balance between fostering diversity and ensuring fairness in the evaluation of candidates.