MORE ON THE EMORY LAW JOURNAL DEBACLE: Scandalous Suppression at a Law Review. “I immediately wrote to the editors: ‘Your comments make clear that you are refusing to publish it because you disagree with its political views. This is a fundamental betrayal of the mission of a scholarly journal. If you maintain your position, then I will also withdraw my article in protest.'” They maintained their position.

Plus: Who Ultimately Runs “Student-Run” Law Reviews? Not Law Review Editors. “Given the odd fact that most law reviews in this country are student-edited, it shouldn’t be an independent institution. A scholarly institution is the responsibility of the members of its discipline. That’s true in general terms, but also in the more specific sense that a law review is ultimately the responsibility of its law school, that school’s faculty, and the review’s faculty advisor. At a minimum, if someone is going to go to the trouble of naming the editor of a law review when complaining that it has failed in its duties, scholarly or contractual, that critic should note the name of the faculty advisor and ask for comment from that person. But beyond that, ultimately a law faculty itself should step in–has an institutional and disciplinary duty to do so–if one of its journals is acting in a way that violates, ignores, or weakens scholarly norms.”