Uncategorized

The Virginia Law Review (VLR) Online is excited to announce the topic for our second annual essay competition. This competition is open to all current law students (including LLMs) and recent graduates (from the Classes of 2018–2021) from any ABA-accredited American law school. We will choose up to three winning submissions, each of which will be awarded a $300 cash prize (subject to any applicable tax reporting and withholding requirements).

Over the past year, we’ve experienced new and old threats to our democracy. While Congress upheld its constitutional duty to certify the election, there were also several unwritten legal norms that kept—or failed to keep—our democratic institutions intact. We are curious about how unwritten legal norms across all levels of government protect or fail to protect our democratic system of governance—not just in the past year, but in the past 234 years. This topic is intentionally broad, but submissions should focus on concepts or actions that have impacted, transformed, harmed, or protected American democracy despite lacking a solid legal or textual foundation in the Constitution or statutes. A non-exhaustive list of potential topics includes: the filibuster, cert requirements, the shadow docket, executive orders, the administrative state, actions of state attorneys general, etc. 

Rules: Each individual may submit no more than one piece, and submissions must be previously unpublished. Jointly-written pieces up to three authors will be accepted. Pieces do not need to be exclusively submitted to VLR Online during the competition window; however, if you choose to publish the piece elsewhere, you must inform VLR Online by emailing Online Development Editor Elizabeth Adler (eca7ba@virginia.edu) within 24 hours of accepting. Students may not receive advising from VLR Online or Notes advisors on their pieces. Pieces may reflect conversations and light comments from professors and other students. They should not, however, be heavily edited by anyone other than the author(s).

Length: Pieces published as part of the VLR Online’s Essay Competition are footnoted and must be no more than 5,000 words in length (including footnotes).

Deadline: All pieces must be submitted by September 10, 2021, at 11:59 p.m. 

Submission: Pieces must be emailed to vlronline_6bd2@sendtodropbox.com in .docx format. The document must abide by these guidelines:

1. The document should include a cover page containing:
   1. The title of the piece;
   1. An abstract of 250 words or less; and
   1. A word count for the piece, both with and without footnotes.
2. The file must be the [Piece Title], and the subject line of the email must be “VLR Online Essay Competition Submission”.
3. Any identifying information must be removed from the body of the document as well as the personal information embedded in the digital file by following the instructions below. This includes removing identifying information typically included at the beginning of a Note in a * footnote. Correctly following all instructions will maintain each author’s anonymity.
   1. Word 2010, 2013, 2016: Go to File, select “Info”, click on Check for Issues”, click on “Inspect Document”. In the dialog box, click “Remove All” and close box. Save document.
   1. Word for Mac 2016, 2018: Go to Tools, select “Protect Document” or select “Protect Document” button on Review tab. Save document.
4. In addition to the document above, all submissions must include the following information in a separate document, which is to be attached to the same email in .pdf format. The PDF should be titled “[Piece Title].Confidential”. This separate document should be a single page and include:
   1. Your name, phone number, e-mail address, and mailing address;
   1. The title of your submission; and
   1. A signed statement (an electronic signature will be accepted) that your piece was not heavily edited by anyone other than the author(s).

Please note that current UVA Law students whose pieces are accepted for publication will be extended invitations to join the Virginia Law Review.

Acknowledgement of History

The Virginia Law Review, established in 1913, has enjoyed a reputation of publishing leading scholarship—pieces that have changed laws, been cited in Supreme Court opinions, and spotlighted the ideas of both prominent scholars and emerging voices. The Review is proud of the many pieces it has published that have strengthened democratic institutions and the rule of law, as well as those that have helped expand access to justice for all.

But the Review has also published pieces that have promoted inhumane, unjust, and racist laws. In the Review’s inaugural volume, for instance, the Editorial Board published an article advocating sterilization of “the unfit,” such as immigrants whom the author deemed undesirable.¹ 1.J. Miller Kenyon, Sterilization of the Unfit, 1 Va. L. Rev. 458, 465–66 (1914).Show More The author relied on eugenicist pseudoscience and compared the practice of forced sterilization to that of breeding farm animals.² 2.Id. at 466.Show More The Review’s first volume also featured an author who wrote approvingly about racial segregation on intrastate transportation.³ 3.John C. Doolan, Validity of Separate Coach Laws When Applied to Interstate Passengers, 1 Va. L. Rev. 379, 379, 383 (1914).Show More

Virginia Law Review editors later solicited and published work by the architect of Virginia’s forced sterilization laws, giving a platform to racist, dangerous, and discredited ideas.⁴ 4.Aubrey E. Strode, Sterilization of Defectives, 11 Va. L. Rev. 296 (1925).Show More The article was so influential at the time of publication that the Review printed more issues and wrote to the author to thank him for his contributions.⁵ 5.Aldona Dye, Aubrey Ellis Strode, Virginia Eugenics Project: A Public Archive of Virginia’s Eugenic History (July 10, 2019), http://eugenics-in-virginia.law.virginia.edu/node/1346.Show More

Seven years after women won the franchise with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment, the Review published a piece asserting that “equal rights for women” was a “militant war cry[] . . . loaded with dynamic possibilities for evil.”⁶ 6.Edwin S. Puller, When Equal Rights Are Unequal, 13 Va. L. Rev. 619, 630 (1927).Show More The author argued, among other claims, that women were too emotional to sit on juries and that discriminatory laws were for their protection.⁷ 7.Id. at 620, 624.Show More In the mid-twentieth century, the Review published a piece that uncritically examined the constitutional validity of Jim Crow laws.⁸ 8.Cynthia D. Zimmerman, Note, Constitutional Validity of State “Jim Crow” Laws Under the Commerce Clause, 32 Va. L. Rev. 668, 675 (1946) (though the author predicted the Supreme Court might reverse course).Show More And in 1966, our pages included an article arguing the Fourteenth Amendment did not prohibit laws criminalizing interracial marriage.⁹ 9.Alfred Avins, Anti-Miscegenation Laws and the Fourteenth Amendment: The Original Intent, 52 Va. L. Rev. 1224, 1255 (1966).Show More Defenders of Virginia’s anti-miscegenation laws cited the article in their brief to the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia.¹⁰ 10.Brief for Appellee at 30, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (No. 395).Show More The Court rightly dismissed this argument and struck down the statutes.¹¹ 11.Loving, 388 U.S. at 9–12.Show More

It is true that despite articles laced with prejudice and prevarication in our pages, there were also many that advanced thoughtful, groundbreaking theories of equality.¹² 12.See, e.g., Rhonda V. Magee, Note, The Master’s Tools, from the Bottom up: Responses to African-American Reparations Theory in Mainstream and Outsider Remedies Discourse, 79 Va. L. Rev. 863 (1993); Walter Wadlington, The Loving Case: Virginia’s Anti-Miscegenation Statute in Historical Perspective, 52 Va. L. Rev. 1189 (1966) (providing a diametric view to Avins, supra note 9).Show More Still, these commendable pieces do not erase or excuse the harm our journal caused. While similarly abhorrent articles can be found in the archives of other leading law reviews, it is important that the Review acknowledges and accounts for the injustices to which our own journal contributed. The Review regrets its role in promoting discriminatory and inhumane laws.

The history of the Review’s own membership also contains troubling facts. The staff makeup was entirely white and male for the first eighteen years of publication, with Marion Boyd Crockett becoming the first female editorial board member in 1931. Men led the Review for its first sixty-five years of existence. Carol Stebbins became the first female editor-in-chief in 1979. There was no Black representation on the Review until Dayna Bowen Matthew, now dean of George Washington University Law School, broke the color line in 1987.

For more than a century, publication in the Review has conferred prestige on authors, lending legitimacy and a platform to their ideas. With this gatekeeping role, the Review has a responsibility to promote a more just and inclusive legal system. The Review strives to meet this responsibility by continuing to learn from its history and drawing from diverse perspectives in assembling each volume. While we cannot undo the harm caused by some of the scholarship we published in the past, we can commit ourselves to building a brighter and more inclusive future. By expanding access to our pages and membership, the Review will strive to do just that.

Timeline:

• 1913: The Virginia Law Review is founded and permanently organized
• 1927: The Review, steeped in debt and facing the prospect of collapse, is rescued with the generosity of Dean Lile, other faculty, and alumni
• 1931: Marion Boyd Crockett becomes first woman on the Review editorial board
• 1936: The Review publishes “Goodbye to Law Reviews,” ironically the most cited law review article about law reviews
• 1978: Carol Stebbins becomes first woman elected editor-in-chief of the Review
• 1987: Dayna Matthew becomes first Black student on the editorial board
• 2007: The Review goes online (Law Weekly story)
• 2013: The Review celebrates its centennial

1. J. Miller Kenyon, Sterilization of the Unfit, 1 Va. L. Rev. 458, 465–66 (1914). ↑
2. Id. at 466. ↑
3. John C. Doolan, Validity of Separate Coach Laws When Applied to Interstate Passengers, 1 Va. L. Rev. 379, 379, 383 (1914). ↑
4. Aubrey E. Strode, Sterilization of Defectives, 11 Va. L. Rev. 296 (1925). ↑
5. Aldona Dye, Aubrey Ellis Strode, Virginia Eugenics Project: A Public Archive of Virginia’s Eugenic History (July 10, 2019), http://eugenics-in-virginia.law.virginia.edu/node/1346. ↑
6. Edwin S. Puller, When Equal Rights Are Unequal, 13 Va. L. Rev. 619, 630 (1927). ↑
7. Id. at 620, 624. ↑
8. Cynthia D. Zimmerman, Note, Constitutional Validity of State “Jim Crow” Laws Under the Commerce Clause, 32 Va. L. Rev. 668, 675 (1946) (though the author predicted the Supreme Court might reverse course). ↑
9. Alfred Avins, Anti-Miscegenation Laws and the Fourteenth Amendment: The Original Intent, 52 Va. L. Rev. 1224, 1255 (1966). ↑
10. Brief for Appellee at 30, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) (No. 395). ↑
11. Loving, 388 U.S. at 9–12. ↑
12. See, e.g., Rhonda V. Magee, Note, The Master’s Tools, from the Bottom up: Responses to African-American Reparations Theory in Mainstream and Outsider Remedies Discourse, 79 Va. L. Rev. 863 (1993); Walter Wadlington, The Loving Case: Virginia’s Anti-Miscegenation Statute in Historical Perspective, 52 Va. L. Rev. 1189 (1966) (providing a diametric view to Avins, supra note 9). ↑