An organization that accused the University of Michigan Law Review of discriminating against straight white men has voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit. The group, Faculty, Alumni, and Students Opposed to Racial Preferences (FASORP), filed a notice of dismissal on October 10, ending its legal challenge against the university.
The lawsuit had claimed that the prestigious student-edited journal used race and sex as factors in selecting its members and published authors, which the group argued was a violation of federal anti-discrimination statutes. The dismissal notice did not state a reason for withdrawing the case.
Key Takeaways
- FASORP has voluntarily dismissed its discrimination lawsuit against the University of Michigan Law Review.
- The lawsuit alleged that the journal's selection process gave preferential treatment to women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ individuals.
- The case focused on the use of a "personal statement" in applications, which encouraged candidates to discuss their identity.
- The dismissal follows a previous court action in July that had already dismissed claims against the journal's editors and the university's Board of Regents.
Details of the Allegations
The core of FASORP's complaint centered on the selection process for the Michigan Law Review. The lawsuit alleged that the journal had moved away from a purely merit-based system, which traditionally relied on first-year grades and a writing competition.
According to the court filing, the application process was updated to include a 750-word "personal statement." The lawsuit claimed applicants were encouraged to disclose their race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity within this statement. FASORP argued this practice resulted in preferential treatment for women, racial minorities, and members of the LGBTQ community.
The organization contended that this system disadvantaged heterosexual and cisgender white male applicants, even if they had superior academic records and application scores. The lawsuit sought a court order to prevent the law review from requesting demographic information from applicants in the future.
Legal Context and University Policy
Student-run law reviews at top universities are highly competitive and prestigious. Membership is often seen as a significant credential for future legal careers. The selection process for these journals has been a subject of debate at various institutions, balancing traditional academic metrics with broader diversity goals.
The Legal Remedies Sought
FASORP's legal action had two primary objectives. First, it asked the court to issue an injunction that would prohibit the Michigan Law Review from asking for or considering information related to an applicant's race, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
Second, the organization requested that the court mandate the establishment of new selection policies. The lawsuit specified that these new policies for choosing members, editors, and articles should be based exclusively on academic and scholarly merit, removing considerations of personal identity or background.
The lawsuit aimed to "restore meritocracy in academia and eliminate diversity considerations," a stated goal of FASORP since its founding in 2018.
Case Timeline and Dismissal
The notice of dismissal, filed on October 10, brought an end to the case. This action was taken by FASORP itself, effectively withdrawing its own claims. Legal experts note that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice could potentially allow for the case to be refiled later, but the filing did not specify these terms.
This development followed an earlier ruling in the case. In July, a judge had already dismissed the specific claims filed against the law review's student editors and the University of Michigan's Board of Regents, narrowing the scope of the lawsuit before it was fully withdrawn.
Organizational Backing
The lawsuit was supported by the America First Legal Foundation, a conservative nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C. The foundation was founded by Stephen Miller, who served as a senior advisor in the Trump administration.
Reactions and Implications
Attorneys representing FASORP were either unavailable or declined to provide a comment on the reasons for the dismissal. Similarly, the University of Michigan did not issue an immediate public statement regarding the withdrawal of the lawsuit.
The case was one of several recent legal challenges across the country targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in higher education. The dismissal of the suit means the Michigan Law Review's current policies will not be subject to the court-ordered changes FASORP had sought. However, the debate over the role of diversity in academic selections continues to be a prominent topic on university campuses nationwide.
The outcome leaves the existing application and selection framework for the prestigious legal journal in place. The university has not indicated any plans to alter its processes in light of the now-dismissed legal challenge.