<\/p>\n
This is a developing story and will be updated as more information becomes available.<\/em><\/p>\n Faculty, Alumni, & Students Opposed to Racial Preferences<\/a>, represented by America First Legal<\/a>, filed a federal lawsuit<\/a> Wednesday against the Michigan Law Review<\/a>, several of its editors and the University of Michigan as a whole, alleging discrimination in how MLR selects its members and articles. According to the lawsuit, 40% of Michigan Law Review applicants are chosen purely on test scores without consideration of personal identity. The rest, however, are chosen through a holistic process which includes a personal statement, which FARSOP claims is vulnerable to bias.<\/p>\n \u201cThe remaining 60% of the new student members are chosen through a process that the Law Review calls \u201cholistic review,\u201d in which the Law Review considers an applicant\u2019s mini-note, bluebook exercise, note proposal, first-year grades, and personal statement,\u201d the lawsuit reads. \u201cBut there is no fixed or announced formula for weighing these five different factors, or for deciding which students will be accepted through this \u201cholistic review\u201d process. Instead, the members of the Law Review\u2019s \u201cHolistic Review Committee\u201d have unfettered discretion to decide how these five factors will be weighted for each particular applicant\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n The lawsuit alleges that MLR\u2019s holistic review process for selecting editors and articles is discriminatory against heterosexual, white and Asian applicants, who FASORP says are more qualified than some of the minority applicants chosen over them.\u00a0<\/p>\n