Law firm sued for diversity fellowship shuts down.

Morrison & Foerster quietly allows ‌whites to apply for diversity fellowship targeted by activist‌ behind affirmative action cases

The law⁣ firm‌ Morrison & Foerster has ‌made a significant change‍ to ​its⁤ diversity fellowship program ⁢in response to a discrimination lawsuit filed by Edward Blum, the ⁣activist known for his involvement⁤ in the Supreme Court ⁤case that banned affirmative ⁣action in⁤ college admissions.

Previously, the Keith Wetmore ‌Fellowship for Excellence, Diversity, and Inclusion only considered applicants from “underrepresented” groups, ⁤including racial/ethnic minorities ⁤and members of the​ LGBTQ+ ‌community, as stated in the fellowship’s description on the firm’s website.

However, just eight days​ after Blum’s⁣ lawsuit was ​filed, Morrison & Foerster removed ⁢any references to​ race or ​sexual orientation from the fellowship’s criteria. The new criteria now state that ⁢the fellowship is open to all law ​students who have ⁢demonstrated ‍a commitment to promoting diversity and bring a diverse perspective to the firm.

This change suggests that Morrison &⁢ Foerster, one of ​the​ top‌ law firms in the country, is ‍unwilling to defend its ⁢race-based initiatives now that the legal ⁣landscape has shifted. In fact, ​the firm had previously advised its clients to eliminate “unlawful ‍preferences” like⁤ quotas or set asides ⁤in their diversity programs following⁣ the Supreme ⁣Court’s​ decision. However, ⁤it did not implement these changes until Blum’s group, the American Alliance for ⁣Equal Rights,⁣ sued Morrison ‍& Foerster and another law firm, Perkins Coie, over their diversity fellowships.

While Perkins Coie has vowed to defend its ​fellowship, which is specifically reserved for⁤ students of color, LGBTQ+ students, ⁤and students with disabilities, Morrison & Foerster ‌has⁤ not responded ⁣to⁣ requests for​ comment.

Blum’s lawsuits argue that both fellowship programs violate the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which prohibits racial discrimination in contracting. This law has been the basis for civil ‌rights complaints against various companies, including Amazon, Starbucks, and⁢ Pfizer,⁤ that limit grants and⁣ fellowships to members of minority⁤ groups.

Although the Supreme Court’s decision did not directly address private contracts, it did create⁢ a defensive stance ⁢among corporations and signaled a⁤ willingness to ​strike down race-based programs outside of education. As a result, there has‍ been an increase in⁣ legal threats from conservative entities, such as Republican attorneys general warning Fortune 100 companies against unlawful quotas and Senator ‍Tom Cotton putting law firms on notice about⁢ their diversity programs. America First Legal,⁣ founded by former Donald Trump adviser Stephen Miller, has also demanded‍ an end to racial preferences in law‌ schools.

In response to ‍this ⁤legal pressure, some institutions have preemptively abandoned race-based policies. For example, Columbia ⁣Law School initially ⁢announced a requirement ⁢for 90-second video statements from all applicants, which raised concerns about circumventing the affirmative action ban. However, the policy was quickly abandoned after contact⁢ from the⁢ Washington Free Beacon. Additionally, ⁤a few universities have dropped ⁤race-based scholarships within a ‌week ‍of the Supreme Court’s decision, recognizing that its ⁢implications⁢ extend beyond admissions.

Law firms have‌ played a role in legitimizing ‍these policies. Covington & Burling, a ​prominent white ​collar firm in Washington, D.C., has supported numerous race-conscious programs through its “civil rights” audit practice, which serves clients‌ like‌ Starbucks, Citigroup, BlackRock, ⁢and Verizon. Other firms like Wilmerhale, Skadden Arps, and Paul Weiss ‌offer similar audits.

“It’s been surreal to see law firms encouraging⁣ clients to pursue these policies,” said Jonathan ‌Berry, managing ‍partner at⁤ Boyden Gray & Associates, “often in what seems like open defiance of the Civil⁢ Rights Act.”