The Duke Law Journal (DLJ) is at the center of controversy following recent revelations. The journal reportedly sent a confidential memo to minority applicants that offered tailored guidance on how to strengthen their personal statements.

Allegations of Preferential treatment

The memo suggested that if applicants discussed their membership of an “underrepresented group,” they would receive extra consideration for doing so. The document reportedly was not distributed to all applicants, but only to those the administrators identified as members of “affinity groups.”

The application process for the journal includes writing a 12-page casenote analysis of an appellate court decision. Additionally, applicants are required to submit a 500-word personal statement.

The Duke Law Journal claims to offer admission on the basis of several components:

“One-third of the offers we extend are based on grades alone, one-third are based on the students’ score in the Casenote Competition, and one third are based on a combination of the students’ casenote score, grade point average, and a 500 word personal statement, equally weighted.”

 — Duke Law Journal About Page

The packet included the rubric used to grade personal statements, as well as tips from a DLJ individual. The first bullet point under tips for the personal statement reads: “Discuss traditional diversity (race, gender, ethnicity, etc.).”

The personal statement rubric said that if students explained how their membership in an underrepresented group could “lend itself to … promoting diverse voices,” they could earn up to 10 points. It also outlined that a student could earn an additional 3-5 points if they “hold a leadership position in an affinity group.”

The packet included examples of personal statements from previous students who were offered admission to the DLJ. All of which mentioned race, gender, and/or national origin.

Title VI Concerns

Jeannette Doran, senior counsel for the John Locke Foundation, suggested the memo could expose Duke University to potential liability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

“No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”

 — Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964

According to the law, any component of Duke University’s educational programs must comply with Title VI, because it receives federal funding. If DLJ is found to have administered a racially preferential admissions process, the university could face a federal investigation or lawsuit.

“The Supreme Court made it clear that people must be judged by their qualifications, not by immutable characteristics like race or sex that they have no control over,” Doran said.

She said this practice is in violation of Title VI of the US Constitution.

“This blatant disregard for the Constitution and Title VI is especially egregious coming from student scholars at a premier law school,” Doran said.

Affirmative Action’s Shifting Landscape

This controversy also arrives in the wake of the US Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and SFFA v. UNC. The cases originated in 2014, when SFFA sued both schools. Both institutions were accused of discriminating against white and Asian students in their admissions process and giving preferential treatment to black and Latino applicants.

The cases were combined in an attempt to curtail these practices in both public and private universities. The court decided both cases together in a 6-3 vote, with opinions that spanned 237 pages. It concluded that both universities’ admissions programs violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.