The Harvard Crimson has the story:
It was November 2023, the Harvard Law Review was embroiled in bitter debates over a blog post that described the war in Gaza as a genocide, and Daniel F. Wasserman was fed up.
“A proposal to block the publication of a blog is out of the ordinary for typical blog posts, but then again most blog posts on international humanitarian law don’t ignore barbaric acts of terrorism,” Wasserman, then a second-year Harvard Law School student, wrote in an email blast to the Law Review’s members. . . .
In the end, the Law Review did not publish the blog post.
But for Wasserman, the dispute was only the beginning. A committed conservative, Wasserman believed that selection policies that took race and gender into account were discriminatory. For him, the Diversity Committee’s moment of assertiveness was emblematic of what he saw as deeper rot in the Law Review — a tangle of antisemitism, anti-white racism, and rejection of meritocracy.
This spring, those accusations exploded into the open, and the Law Review found itself facing claims that both its article review process and selection of new members were skewed against white male applicants.
I previously wrote about those claims here.