University of Oregon Confirms Oregon Law Review Discrimination Against Israeli Scholar
EUGENE, OR – The University of Oregon’s Office of Investigations and Civil Rights Compliance (OICRC) has officially concluded that its student-run Oregon Law Review (OLR) engaged in Oregon Law Review discrimination based on “perceived national origin” against an Israeli academic. This finding, delivered in August 2025, stems from a civil rights complaint filed in February 2025, detailing events from the Spring 2024 semester where the OLR rejected an article by a faculty member at Tel Aviv University. The university’s decision has ignited a broader conversation about academic freedom, bias in student-run publications, and the climate for Israeli and Jewish scholars on U.S. campuses.
The investigation found the OLR responsible for violating university policy and the Student Conduct Code. While the OICRC made no findings regarding the intent that motivated the conduct, the outcome has led to a mandatory action plan for the journal. This includes annual discrimination and bias training for all OLR student staff, instructors of record, faculty advisors, and the journal coordinator, slated for completion by September 19, 2025. [6]
Genesis of the Discrimination Complaint
The complaint was brought forward by Professor Ofer Raban of the University of Oregon School of Law, who was a co-author of the rejected article. [5, 7, 10, 16] The article, co-authored with an Israeli professor who also teaches in the United States, focused on environmental law and reportedly contained no political content related to Israel. [5, 10, 16, 22] Despite its academic merits, internal communications among OLR student editors revealed explicit concerns that publishing the piece could be interpreted as an endorsement of Israel, leading to its rejection. [5, 16, 22]
This decision, made in April 2024 during the selection process for Volume 103 of the journal, highlighted a troubling instance where an author’s institutional affiliation – and by extension, their perceived national origin – superseded the scholarly value of their work. [6]
Conflicting Accounts on Administrative Involvement and Transparency Concerns
A significant point of contention surrounding the Oregon Law Review discrimination case is the extent of administrative knowledge and approval. The University of Oregon’s official statement from the law school dean indicated that “no law school administrators or faculty were involved in this decision” at the time of the article’s rejection, and that an investigation found one specific law school administrator “not responsible for any policy violation” in connection with a subsequent conversation with concerned OLR board members. [6]
However, Professor Raban and other reports have presented a contrasting narrative, alleging that a “high-ranking member of the law school administration was consulted and then approved the discrimination.” [4, 5, 9, 10, 16, 22] These accounts suggest that while the initial decision to reject the article was made by students, the subsequent review and alleged approval by a senior official lend a different dimension to the institutional responsibility in the matter.
Adding to the controversy, the University of Oregon has invoked FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to justify its refusal to release the full investigative report, citing confidential employee information. [4, 5, 6] This lack of transparency has drawn sharp criticism, with some observers contrasting it with the university’s more open approach in past investigations, such as a 2016 blackface incident, where a full report was made public. [4] Critics argue that this selective confidentiality suggests a potential “pattern of stonewalling and refusals to address complaints of unlawful anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli harassment and discrimination on campus.” [4, 9]
Broader Implications for Academic Freedom and Campus Climate
This instance of Oregon Law Review discrimination is not isolated but rather fits into a larger, more polarized environment on university campuses nationwide. The rejection of the environmental law article based on the author’s affiliation with an Israeli university underscores growing concerns about ideological purity tests and the potential marginalization of Jewish and Israeli scholars in academic spaces. [5, 9]
Federal civil rights protections, specifically Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, prohibit discrimination based on national origin in federally funded institutions. [5, 26] The University of Oregon’s own non-discrimination policy explicitly covers “real or perceived ‘protected characteristic’ including national origin,” affirming that such discrimination “violates the dignity of individuals, impedes the realization of the university’s educational mission, and will not be tolerated.” [23, 24] Title VI’s protection extends to discrimination based on “shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics” or “citizenship or residency in a country with a dominant religion or distinct religious identity.” [26] Legal experts have raised the possibility that the OLR’s actions could constitute a Title VI violation. [5]
This incident at the University of Oregon comes amidst a national climate where universities, including UO itself, have faced scrutiny over their policies and practices, sometimes leading to federal investigations into various institutional policies. For example, the Trump administration previously launched an investigation into Oregon’s transgender athlete policies. More recently, the University of Oregon was also among dozens of universities investigated by the Department of Education in March 2025 for alleged Title VI violations related to DEI programs. [16, 25]
The role of student-run law reviews, traditionally bastions of academic scholarship, has also been brought into question. While they offer invaluable pedagogical experience, the reliance on student editors for editorial judgments has, in this case, led to a finding of discrimination. [12, 21] This incident highlights the delicate balance between granting students editorial independence and ensuring adherence to university-wide non-discrimination policies.
Moving Forward: Addressing Oregon Law Review Discrimination
The mandated action plan, including comprehensive anti-bias and discrimination training for OLR staff and advisors, is a direct institutional response to the OICRC’s findings. [6] This step aims to educate future generations of legal scholars on the importance of objective evaluation and the dangers of allowing perceived national origin or political considerations to influence academic publishing decisions. The completion of this training by mid-September 2025 will be a critical benchmark for the OLR.
However, critics continue to call for greater accountability and transparency from the university administration. The ongoing debate emphasizes the need for universities to not only investigate thoroughly but also to communicate their findings openly and enforce policies consistently to prevent further instances of Oregon Law Review discrimination and to foster an inclusive academic environment for all scholars, regardless of their background or national origin.
