Law journals implement affirmative action policy

Editor resigns in protest,Editor resigns in protest,calls for student referendum The recent decision by editors of two Law School student journals to institute an affirmative action policy for hiring new editors has spurred student protests and a debate over the purposes and effects of race and gender quotas. The editorial boards of both the Journal of International Economic Law and the Penn Law Review approved a policy change that calls for a certain number of racial minority and women editors on future boards. In response, second-year Law student Frank Scaturro resigned from his post as article editor of the JIEL and distributed letters of protest to every first-year Law student's mail folder last week. At the end of their first year of Law School, students enter a competition for editorial positions on the Law School's three student law journals. In addition to submitting to a review of their grades, students must submit an essay and demonstrate the ability to edit an article. Scaturro said he opposes the affirmative action policy because it wrongly excludes people who are qualified to work on the law journals by attempting to uphold certain quotas. "This is not a debate about affirmative action, but about the rationality of tipping the scales in the opposite direction to remedy past resignations," Scaturro said. "I don't want any part of this, since in this context, the policy is not justifiable." In his letter, Scaturro announced his resignation from the JIEL editorial board and called for the University's Law Council of Student Representatives to hold a referendum among first-year Law students to determine their opinions on the affirmative action policies. Scaturro said he hopes to ask students whether the new policies should be replaced by race and gender-neutral guidelines. Scaturro contends that the other eight board members of the JIEL requested his resignation because of his disagreement with the rest of the board. Scaturro cast the lone vote against the policy last week. "This was not a personal issue," Scaturro said. "I submitted my self to the rule of the board." Each year, approximately 30 to 35 students are selected to work on the journals. Under the new policy, up to 10 percent of applicants from the most under-represented racial or gender groups can be added to the board after the original selections. The JIEL is currently composed of eight white members and one Asian. The group includes two women and seven men. But the third Law School journal, the Journal of Comparative Labor Law, is comprised of more African Americans than the other two journals combined, according to Scaturro. JIEL Editor-in-Chief and second-year Law student Mike Fahey said he supports the race and gender policy because "it is an important value for the journals to promote diversity." "The policy provides an additional opportunity for people who are typically under-represented -- it is not a quota policy," he added. But Scaturro called the addition of editors on the basis of race or gender a "substitution policy," affecting people who may be more qualified. "Race and gender are not proper criteria to weed out the underprivileged from the privileged," he added. "If race and gender are going to be the issue, then why not apply this type of policy with grades?" Fahey countered that the race and gender policy is not a "substitution policy" because the new system does not require any additional board members. He said it merely provides a way to expand the boards in the event of unequal representation. First-year Law student Joseph Glatt said he supports the policy. "The idea of applying affirmative action to equalize disadvantages one group might suffer would be even more successful if the law journals had a significant effect on the Law School," Glatt said. "But I think that in competing for the journal positions, everyone is disadvantaged because only a certain few -- no matter which class -- are going to have the right editing skills that are needed." First-year Law student Andrew Gallo also supports the policy, deferring to the journals' board members. "If the journal members think a policy like this is needed, it's their prerogative -- they know what's needed," he said. "And if diversity is important to the journals, then there should be an affirmative action policy."