To All Students at the University of Michigan Law School:
In the aftermath of the University of Michigan’s decision to abolish its DEI office on March 27, 2025, law-school interim dean Kyle Logue sent an e-mail to members of the University of Michigan Law School community claiming that the Law School has been complying with Proposition 2’s ban on “preferential treatment to individuals on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”
That statement is untrue. The Michigan Law Review has been discriminating and continues to discriminate on account of race and sex when selecting its student members, by awarding discriminatory preferences to women, non-Asian racial minorities, and homosexual or transgender students. The Michigan Law Review employs similar (and equally unlawful) race and sex preferences when selecting articles for publication. These race and sex preferences are flatly prohibited by Title VI, Title IX, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and state anti-discrimination laws such as Proposition 2.
The Michigan Law Review implements these illegal and discriminatory preferences by inviting students to submit “personal statements” when applying for membership on the Law Review. The Law Review then selects approximately half of its new student members through a process that it calls “holistic review.” During this “holistic review,” applicants who indicate in their personal statements that they are female, non-white and non-Asian, or homosexual or transgender are chosen over heterosexual white men with better grades and better scores on the components of the Law Review’s writing competition.
FASORP (Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences) is a membership organization that litigates against illegal race and sex preferences in academia. FASORP has associational standing to sue the University of Michigan over these illegal race and sex preferences on the Michigan Law Review, and it will sue the university if the Michigan Law Review does not immediately terminate its use of race and sex preferences in membership and article selection. FASORP has already sued Northwestern University over the use of race and sex preferences on the Northwestern University Law Review, as well as its use of race and sex preferences in law-school faculty hiring. SeeFASORP v. Northwestern University, et al., No. 1:25-cv-01129 (N.D. Ill.).
In light of this pending litigation, every student at the University of Michigan must preserve and retain any and every “personal statement” that has been or will be submitted to the Michigan Law Review. All of these will be subpoenaed in discovery. Failure to ensure the preservation of these personal statements will subject you to significant penalties. This letter is not a full recitation of FASORP’s rights, which it expressly reserves.
Doubtless there are some 1Ls who have been intending to trumpet their demographic characteristics in the “personal statements” that they submit to the Law Review, in the hopes of obtaining a diversity bonus and stealing a place on the journal from a more deserving student with better grades and better scores on the writing competition. We strongly suggest that you reconsider this strategy, despite the past success of others who have used their race, sexual proclivities, or gender non-conforming behavior to obtain positions on the Law Review that they did not deserve. FASORP will subpoena every personal statement in discovery, and if we uncover evidence that you obtained your spot on the Law Review through race or sex preferences then you be exposed as a DEI hire on social media. FASORP will also notify your future employers that your Law Review credential is tainted and should be disregarded. You do not want to obtain a position on the Law Review that you did not earn through academic merit, and if you attempt to game the system or think that your race, sex, or LGBTQ status gives you an entitlement to be chosen for the Law Review over your more deserving classmates, then FASORP will ensure that you live to regret it.
For the 2Ls and 3Ls who have already used or attempted your personal statements to obtain a diversity bonus in previous years, it is too late to undo what you have already submitted, and you now are under an obligation to preserve those personal statements into perpetuity. But you might want to encourage the Law Review to change its discriminatory membership-selection practices before FASORP sues and obtains your previously submitted personal statements in discovery. The Law Review will avoid litigation if it immediately eliminates all use of race and sex preferences in the selection of members, editors, and articles, and adopts an official law-review policy that explicitly prohibits any consideration of race or sex. You have every reason to hope that the Law Review will implement these changes rather than litigate these issues in court.
Sincerely,
FASORP
https://fasorp.org
« Previous 1 2