This Article is aimed primarily at guiding current law review members through a process that explores the real purposes of law reviews. Part II discusses the two primary responsibilities of law reviews and the effect that a lack of minority participation has on a review's ability to meet these responsibilities. Specifically, section IIA explores a law review's responsibility to serve as an advanced legal writing course for students. This section questions whether it is legitimate for law reviews to use selection procedure that consistently exclude certain races from this part of the curriculum. Section IIB discusses a law journal's responsibility to serve as a forum of debate open equally to all segments of the legal community. This section also addresses "minority voices"-whether they exist and whether majority-culture students can adequately speak for these voices in the marketplace of ideas.
Having addressed the problems with the status quo in Part II, Part III then questions the validity of grade-on and write-on selection methods and argues that the advantages obtained from using these methods, if any do not justify the problems that have resulted from their exclusive use. Section IIIA explores the arbitrariness of these selection methods and the lack of correlation between law school grades, write-on competitions, and a student's ability to excel as a member of a law review. Section IIIB discusses the cultural and racial biases inherent in traditional "meritocratic" selection procedures that negatively affect minorities. Finally, Part IV summarily addresses each of the five major arguments against affirmative action in light of the previous sections.
Godsey, Mark A., "The Myth of Meritocracy, and the Silencing of Minority Voices: The Need for Diversity on America's Law Reviews" (1995). Faculty Articles and Other Publications. 84.