2025-04-29T00:17:22Z

---

The Trump administration has ramped up its scrutiny of Harvard University, specifically targeting the Harvard Law Review, in a move that could have severe implications for the journal and the prestigious institution itself. This investigation stems from allegations that the Law Review engages in discriminatory practices that violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal funding.

On Monday, officials from the civil rights offices of both the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services announced their decision to investigate the student-run journal. They claim that the journals selection process favors candidates based on race rather than merit, suggesting that the process may be structured as a spoils system where the racial identity of the legal scholar is prioritized over the quality of their submissions. In a statement, Craig Trainor, the acting assistant secretary within the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, expressed concern, stating, "Harvard Law Review's article selection process appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission."

This investigation adds to an ongoing feud between the Trump administration and Harvard University regarding federal funding. The Law Review, which has been published and edited by students for over 135 years, serves as a critical platform for legal scholarship and aims to provide valuable research resources for both practicing lawyers and students. The potential consequences of the investigation are significant; if the Law Review is found to be in violation of Title VI, the journal could face the loss of crucial federal funding.

In response to the investigation, a spokesperson for Harvard Law School emphasized the institution's commitment to compliance with applicable laws, asserting that the Harvard Law Review operates independently as a student-run organization. This clarification aims to distinguish the journal's autonomy from the law school's administration.

The investigation comes on the heels of the Trump administration's earlier decision to freeze over $2.2 billion in federal funding to Harvard. This funding freeze was prompted by the university's refusal to adhere to a series of demands stemming from a recent review conducted by an antisemitism task force. Harvard University President Alan Garber responded strongly, asserting that the government should not dictate the operational practices of private universities regarding their educational content, admission policies, or academic inquiries.

In a legal response to the funding freeze, Harvard has initiated a lawsuit against the Trump administration, arguing that the threats to withhold funding are both "unlawful and beyond the government's authority." U.S. District Court Judge Allison Burroughs has scheduled a hearing for July 21 to discuss this matter. Until then, the funding freeze remains in place, leaving Harvard in a precarious position.

Compounding these challenges, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is reportedly contemplating the revocation of Harvard's tax-exempt status, further intensifying the university's current financial woes.

In a related development, the Department of Education publicly announced on the same day that its civil rights office has determined that the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) violated Title IX by permitting transgender athletes to compete on womens sports teams. The department is now demanding that Penn publicly commit to following the law, apologize to affected athletes, and restore any athletic records unfairly assigned to male athletes. Penn has been given a strict deadline of 10 days to address this violation or risk referral to the Department of Justice. Earlier this year, the Trump administration also suspended $175 million in federal contracts to Penn, citing similar concerns regarding the participation of transgender athletes in womens swimming.

The ongoing legal battles and investigations reflect a broader political struggle over educational policies and civil rights in the United States, and the outcomes could have long-lasting implications for universities across the nation.