Like everything else associated with Harvard University, Harvard Law Review has been subverted by moonbats and subordinated to moonbattery. Consequently, the selection of articles for publication is largely determined by DEI:
“The Review does not consider race, ethnicity, gender, or any other protected characteristic as a basis for recommending or selecting a piece for publication,” the journal wrote in a fact sheet published on May 27.
But according to new documents obtained by the Free Beacon, the law review eliminates more than 85 percent of submissions using a rubric that asks about “author diversity.”…
[I]n at least 87 cases identified by the Free Beacon—including 75 from the volume published last year alone—the journal considered protected traits or encouraged its members to do so.
“Protected traits” secure membership in an identity group that enjoys the favor of the liberal establishment.
Editors complained that a piece had cited “A LOT of old white men,” attempted to guess whether a scholar was “Latina,” complained that an author was “not from an underrepresented background,” and praised an article for citing “predominantly Black singers, rappers, and members of Twitter.”
Another article was recommended, in part, because “it cites a Kendrick song in the Conclusion!”
This is not some moronic pop music publication targeting teenagers but the Harvard Law Review. There is nothing that moonbattery will not reduce to farce in the process of destroying.
Not only the authors but also the citations must comply with DEI:
While some editors recommended pieces on the grounds that the author was a minority, others paid more attention to the article’s footnotes, combing through the citations to see how many sources were white, black, or transgender.
The content also must conform — and not even most moonbats are moonbatty enough for Harvard Law Review:
[An] editor, Jennifer West, complained that a feminist analysis of antitrust law had not addressed “racial disparities in economic power” or discussed the experiences of transgender people, adding that “the DEI values advanced by the piece are limited.”
“Despite occasional references to the ‘cisgendered’ and ‘heterosexual’ power-brokers and power structures that dominate in our contemporary era … the article advances a binaristic conception of gender that does not reflect contemporary understandings of gender diversity,” she wrote.
As co-chair of the journal’s articles committee, West has the final say on which pieces advance past the first, second, and third stages of the article selection process.
No way should taxpayers be forced to subsidize an institution as pernicious (not to mention well-endowed) as ostensibly private Harvard. Yet we have been — by the $billions. Thankfully, Trump is turning down the money spigot.
On a tip from Barry A.
