🔥The 9th Round of Easy Loan, Earn $40 Reward is in progress❗️ ⏰ Promotion Period: January 15th - Feburary 15th, 2025 👉 Register now and check more details at gate.io/campaigns/358

I compiled the titles of ~460 articles considered for advanced screening by the HLR, based on reports by the Washington Free Beacon . Lots of juicy details in the memo, but the worst: AI is all but absent! In 2025!

NEW: The Harvard Law Review axes 85% of pieces using a rubric that asks about "author diversity." It even axed a piece by an Asian scholar after editors complained that there were "not enough Black" authors. We analyzed 500 new documents from HLR. What we found was shocking.🧵

The law review has insisted that it "does not consider race, ethnicity, gender, or any other protected characteristic as a basis for recommending or selecting a piece for publication." But it screens out the vast majority of submissions using the following rubric:

40% of editors since 2024 have cited protected characteristics when lobbying for or against articles—at one point killing a piece by an Asian-American scholar, Alex Zhang, after an editor complained that "we have too many Yale JDs and not enough Black and Latino/Latina authors."

The exchange took place on March 13—months after Trump had ordered schools to end racial preferences—and was chronicled in meeting minutes from the law review’s articles committee a 10-person body that screens out the vast majority of submissions. Zhang's piece was voted down.

The Free Beacon was accused of cherry picking incidents of the Harvard Law Review valuing race above the substance of article submission. Well, here are all the cherries.

When authors submit to the Harvard Law Review, they have the option of indicating their gender via a drop-down menu. That menu includes “trans woman,” “trans man,” and “gender nonconforming.” It does not, however, include nonbinary.

Scandalous That the Harvard Law Review, supposedly the nation‘s leading academic legal journal, has been judging submissions based in part on whether they “promote DEI values” rather than on scholarly merit.

If I follow this correctly, the Washington Free Beacon has posted the complete set of last year's internal Harvard Law Review memos on submissions that went past the initial read—memos covering over 400 articles, adding up to 2,288 pages. Wow. For those wondering how top

In The Canceling of the American Mind Rikki Schlott & I talk about the “perfect rhetorical fortress,” layers upon layers of cheap rhetorical tricks and dodges that allow people to “win arguments” without actually engaging in good faith with their opponents’ substantive arguments.

Sorry, but academic freedom has no content if it cannot serve as a shield for “hate” or “distortion.” If you don’t believe campuses should tolerate those things, then you don’t believe in academic freedom.