The Harvard Law Review has removed all references to race and gender from the essay prompt used to evaluate prospective editors, the latest sign that the journal is on the back foot following a wave of investigations and funding cuts by the Trump administration.
The journal told prospective editors on May 1—three days after the Trump administration began investigating the law review for race discrimination—that they would be encouraged to disclose a slew of protected characteristics as part of their “holistic review statement.” Lawyers who reviewed the prompt said it provided further evidence of discrimination that the government could use in its campaign against Harvard.
But when applicants were asked to submit their statements a few weeks later, the language about identity had been scrubbed from the prompt.
Distributed on May 18 during the journal’s annual writing competition, the new prompt asks applicants to identify “aspects of your perspectives, experiences, and viewpoints” that will “enhance your contribution to the Law Review.” It does not ask about race, gender, religion, or disability status—all attributes that the original prompt had solicited.
Students were also told that sharing any materials from the writing competition, which selects nearly half of the journal’s editors, could get them disbarred. In the instructions emailed to applicants, the journal said it would consider any leak of the materials a matter of academic dishonesty and report the offending student to the law school, adding that academic dishonesty can affect admissions to the bar.
The president of the Harvard Law Review, G. Terrell Seabrooks, did not respond to a request for comment.
The new prompt comes as two federal agencies are investigating whether the law review uses race to select editors and articles for publication, part of the Trump administration’s escalating campaign against Harvard University.
The Department of Homeland Security on Thursday revoked Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students, citing “pro-terrorist conduct” at student protests. That move followed the administration’s decision to freeze more than $2.65 billion to the university—including $450 million that was cut as a result of Washington Free Beacon reports about the Harvard Law Review.
The Free Beacon published documents in April showing the extent of racial preferences at the law review, where editors routinely cite the race of authors when recommending articles for publication. In conjunction with Harvard Law faculty, the law review also gave a $65,000 fellowship to one editor, Ibrahim Bharmal, who had been charged with assaulting his Israeli classmate, an incident that was captured on video and first reported by the Free Beacon.
The White House anti-Semitism task force cited both stories in a statement announcing the cuts.
Harvard has filed two lawsuits against the administration, one challenging the grant freeze and another challenging the decision to end the school’s visa program. Though a federal court blocked the latter action on Friday morning, the grant cuts remain in effect.
