On rare occasions, such discussion may spill over into the faculty lounge. Finally, we appreciate the thoughtful, dedicated team of editors at the Columbia Law Review for their assistance in shepherding this piece to publication.ĭebate about the relative quality of various law review volumes is usually confined to student editors’ offices. We are also grateful to all the past and current law review editors who were willing to share information with us. Masur thanks the David & Celia Hilliard Fund and the Wachtell Program in Behavioral Law, Finance & Economics for research support. We also thank Merav Bennett, Liam Gennari, Adam Hassanein, Michael Pelle, Kimberly Rubin, Yiming Sun, Ramis Wadood, and Logan Wren for timely, first-rate research assistance. For helpful comments and suggestions, we thank John Friedman, Pratheepan Gulasekaram, Randall Kennedy, David Oppenheimer, Scott Page, Kevin Tobia, Melvin Urofsky, and participants at the Conference on Empirical Legal Studies, University of Chicago Law School Seminar, Washington University School of Law Seminar, and the Opportunity Insights Seminar at Harvard University. Wilson Professor of Law, David and Celia Hilliard Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School Rozema: Associate Professor of Law, Washington University School of Law. Slaughter Professor of Law, Yale Law School Masur: John P. * Chilton: Professor of Law and Walter Mander Research Scholar, University of Chicago Law School Driver: Robert R. The full text of this Article can be found by clicking the PDF link to the left. We thus view these results as empirically supporting the much-derided diversity rationale-support that could prove critical as affirmative action confronts numerous threats. If diverse groups of student editors perform better than nondiverse groups, it lends credibility to the idea that diverse student bodies, faculties, and groups of employees generally perform better. These findings have widespread implications. When doing so, our estimates are consistently positive, but they are largely not statistically significant at conventional levels. In addition to exploring the effect of diversity policies on median citations, we also explore the effect of diversity policies on mean citations. Using a dataset of nearly 13,000 articles published over a sixty-year period, we find that law reviews that adopt diversity policies see median citations to their volumes increase by roughly 23% in the ensuing five years. We investigate whether citations to articles that a law review publishes change after it adopts a diversity policy. Over the past several decades, many leading law reviews have implemented diversity policies for selecting editors. To assess the diversity rationale, we conduct an empirical study of student-run law reviews. In particular, prominent scholars and jurists have cast doubt on the diversity rationale’s empirical foundations, claiming that it rests on an implausible and unsupported hypothesis. Critics on the left charge that diversity is mere “subterfuge.” On the diversity rationale’s legitimacy, then, there is precious little diversity of thought. Critics on the right argue that diversity efforts lead to “less meritorious” applicants being selected. Bakke made diversity in higher education a constitutionally acceptable rationale for affirmative action programs, the diversity rationale has received vehement criticism from across the ideological spectrum. Ever since Justice Lewis Powell’s opinion in Regents of the University of California v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |