[.ca] Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in ... (ISBN 0195107179)

From Amazon.com:
There is a school of legal scholarship that blends some of the most radical theories extant in legal circles today, christened "radical multiculturalism" by Daniel A. Farber and Suzanna Sherry, law professors at the University of Minnesota; in their book, Beyond All Reason, they give us plenty of reasons to worry about it. According to Farber and Sherry, both long-standing liberals, radical multiculturalism gives liberalism a bad name. It is a system of thought that admits no objective reality, no truth, no hope of a just or equal society. Its proponents--everyone from critical race theorist Richard Delgado to feminist Catharine MacKinnon--posit that such values are merely tools of the dominant society (white males) used to keep everyone else subservient. In such a world, then, it doesn't matter whether or not O.J. Simpson killed his ex-wife; the objective truth in that case is less important than the fact that a black man was put on trial in a white-dominated society, making him at least as much a victim as Nicole Simpson. Farber and Sherry write with restraint and patience, but there's no doubt that they're seriously alarmed by what they see as the disproportionate power that radical multiculturalists wield in the legal world. Though their numbers are small, proponents of this kind of legal thinking are vocal and aggressive; their influence is being reflected more and more by the choices of law school professors and deans, the slant of curriculums, and eventually in the thinking of the students they teach. To Farber and Sherry, such a turn of events is cause for deep concern, for what hope can there be for real justice--real peace--in a legal system that rejects the existence of truth--or worse, denies that it matters.

Reasonable Doubt:
While this book provided a valuable insight to the psychology and motives of the multiculturalist left, a good deal of its content was tied up in polemics. It gives a clear image of the effects and sources of the current attack on reality that has emerged from university philosophy departments and proceeds to infiltrate our legal system like a subtle swamp monster. For the reader who is not familiar with the origins of multiculturalism, it provides a sound history and family tree for the movement. Much of the book is involved in critiquing the ideas of racial and feminist activists and the implications multiculturalism has for American individualism. Particular attention is paid to its implications regarding racism towards minorities who have been successful in America, such as Asians and Jews. On the whole, a good criticism of a dangerous trend, but lacking in real cohesiveness and counterargument.

Powerful arguments against a disastrous trend.:
For the last few years, I've been intrigued by educated people, not trendy 19 year olds from whom you'd expect such behavior but older people, with as many letters after their names as in them, being enamored by the "New Age." Tarot cards, I Ching, UFOs, you name it. This "age" is not really "new." Nor is it, obviously, the abode of the less educated. Psycho pioneer Carl Jung was a true believer, and, as I've indicated, there seems to be more of the educated than less educated who subscribe to the practices today. But in the late 20th century, a time in which our intellectual know-how has brought about some remarkable achievements, one would hope that asking "What is your sign?" might be a mere reminiscence. Well, after reading volumes to try to understand what attracts people to such foolishness, I've run across a few volumes that expose where this New Age anti-intellectualism has crossed paths with politics and law. This is one of those volumes. No, I'm !not suggesting that the "radical multiculturalists" are advocating astrology. ("You are a Virgo, so less inclined to misogyny or racism.") But they are--and quite rabidly--anti-intellectual, or, as the authors call them, anti-Enlightenment. You see, reason and objectivity, these "radicals" say, are the patterns--or hangups?--of us white, male oppressors. The authors, law professors, introduce the book well. For example, they start by saying they're not claiming that, "We're bigger victims than you are." They set a base for their arguments, which are many and powerful. They examine a history of radical multiculturalists whom they distinguish from their predecessors, e.g., Michel Foucault and, later, the Critical Legal Studies (CLS) "scholars." However, I fear they excuse some of the radicals, saying that their intent is not to trash them, then go on to offer examples of how they're truly trashable! The authors describe how the radicals have given up any concept of! legal reasoning for storytelling. Unfortunately, like the stories of Ronald Reagan, whom the radicals would claim to despise, their stories are most often not true. Indeed, one of the authors tells a story about her childhood. She starts by saying that everything in the story is true, then tells the story. She then tells the same story with details nuanced differently, different contexts and shades. The story has dramatically different results. That narrative approach reminds me of some of the stories of the "successful" who talk about how they "made it" despite the overwhelming odds; when the truth is told, the odds were, contrary to the author's mythology, dramatically in favor of them, or at least much less against them than they'd claimed. That approach, elaborating on the inherent fallacies of storytelling, is valuable. The book gets a little dry in later chapters, and a little difficult to follow. Earlier it reminds me of Alan Sokal and his parody of social theor!ists: it actually quotes those radical multiculturalists, among them that Josef(ine?) Goebbels of feminism, Cathrine McKinnon. I say "actually" because the quotes are examples of hyperbole and and gross intellectual negligence, volatile and divisive. On the one hand I reject what these "radicals" say. On the other hand I can understand why they say it: They become the gurus of a "movement." Since reason, again, the bias of white males, plays virtually no part in their statements and conclusions--which I would have expected from spokespersons from the far Right--they can say whatever they like, and have an audience cheering and fueling their egos. It's demagoguery in its lowest form, from the highest of ivory towers. And, like their far Right compatriots, they're immune from context, history, facts, and critical thinking. I guess what truly astonishes me about these "radicals" is that they don't see their own irony. The civil rights movement sought equality; the failed E!qual Rights Amendment did the same, hence its name. But the "radicals" are very tribal: Blacks and nonblacks can't truly communicate as they're too different. Women and men can't truly communicate as their cultures are just too distinct. So much for equality! Who's racist? Who's sexist? Further, the radicals' rhetoric ultimately endorses a police state. If we humans, particularly we white males, are virtually uncurable, then I guess it's the state's responsibility to control us, and to entitle the traditional victims with special treatment at the expense of the traditional victimizers. Oh, and merit is trash, another subjective commodity designed to keep "us" white males in power. So when I need an attorney to defend me against an outrageous charge, I guess I should seek a minority lawyer who really knows what such charges are like, rather than one whose race or sex means less to me than his or her qualities--and qualifications--as an individual. Is it any wo!nder that many whites AND even truly scholarly minorities and women are tired of their motives, and their intelligence being challenged by these demagogues? As to the radicals' effects on law students, I hope the students who buy their rhetoric stick to writing diatribes and not head to the courtroom where they'll pull race and sex cards, and litigate every perceived wrongdoing until law as a profession becomes even less credible than it is now. Finally, I hope this book is read by those inclined to want to solve racial and social problems, and who wonder why the problems seem to be getting worse. Maybe then, future reader, you can begin to understand and do something about identity politics.

Impressive and Important:
Amazing there are only two reviews of this book here. I finally read this and liked it a great deal. The central idea is that "radical multiculturalism" is distinguishable from what is known as critical legal studies, and that an inherently racist set of assumptions forms the core of radical multiculturalism. Since the radical multiculturalist rejects appeals to the concept of merit (or just dessert), he or she cannot use that concept in an explanation of the disproportional success of Jews and Asians in the alleged white gentile male conspiracy that is the Western world in the eyes of all the alleged kulturexperts on kampus. Jews are overrepresented on law faculties, in the sciences, in the arts and so on, including hollywood and broadway. Asians are far more likely than whites to attend college, as are Jews, and so on. (The numbers involved here are well known and uncontroversial for the most part.) Since the radical multiculturalist holds that it is not merit that gets people where they are in the world, they seem to believe that Jews and Asians, like whites, do not deserve the success that they have enjoyed. In order to explain that unearned (unmerited) success, the multicultie critic can appeal either to: A) Jews and Asians are highly successful manipulators of an unethical system (of the white male conspiracy), or B) Jews and Asians are successful due to their own unethical systems (conspiracies) to promote themselves and their own power. Both explanations open to the radical multicultie are prima facie racist, prima facie anti-Semitic, prima-facie slanderous of Asian people. This is the heart of the book, the main charge against radical multicultie. The authors are interested in a larger point of view, however, including the rejection of truth and the rejection of objectivity in radical legal scholarship. Most interesting and weird of the highlights of this work are the authors' reports and commentaries on the new law review fashion of publishing stories. These first person narratives are alleged to teach a great deal more about the law than abstract legal reasoning 'ever could'--so plea the race romantics. Farber and Sherry have a field day with this nonsense. I found the final chapter, anatomy of an ideology, very valuable. It is surely the most succinct statement of the way that American radicalism works that I have ever seen. All by itself, this chapter is worth the cost of the book. The fact that you get the long and extensive analysis of the racism inherent in multicultie makes this book money very well spent on a sizable amount of material that, due to its rational (not merely fashionable) nature, will never lose value. The arguments discussed vis a vis education in law, transfer immediately to other fields, that is, the point of view that Farber and Sherry have taken, and the tactics they use to undermine their opponents' views, are in no way limited to legal studies or legal practice. The entire book is transferable almost verbatim to disputes in English departments, in Business and so on. Radical multicultie is racism, and there should be no surprise in that, since it is the result of the caving in of the intellect to pity and moral tyrrany--that is to say, the american doctrine of identity politics developed in the wake of the general university policy of accomodating and making concessions to ignorance, envy, vanity, and even racist sentiments, as long as they were 'authentic' sentiments from "authetically pityable" classes. It is the result of these concessions, and as doctrine, amounts to special pleading for the allowableness of some forms of vileness, but not others. Ultimately, it is a policy sculpted to not demand non-racist attitudes from race baiters and other 'good racists'--. That kind of racism is good, and we need more of it, thinks the official radicalism on campus today.

HALF TRUTHS AND MISSING FACTS.....:
While well written and easy to follow, Farber and Sherry's book fails to provide their audience with an accurate picture of Critical Race Theory (CRT or "radical multiculturalism," as coined by the authors). They begin by only citing short conclusory statements made by CRT scholars and the authors never explore the reasoning behind the CRT scholars' conclusions. After curiously leaving this information out of their book, the authors then attack CRT, claiming it is based on story telling, as opposed to legal reasoning. CRT is based on logical premises and reasoning, Farber and Sherry just fail to acknowledge it. Instead of critically engaging and challenging the authenticity of CRT- they merely dismiss it as anti-Semitic, irrational, and emotionally charged. The authors also neglect to explore other plausible explanations for the success of Asians or Jews, that is not anti-Semitic or anti-Asian in nature. For anyone interested in the topic, it is crucial that you consult with Professor Deborah Malamud's response to the assertion that CRT is inherently anti-Semitic (Please see "The Jew Taboo," 59 Ohio St.L.J. 915). Another review of Farber and Sherry worth reading is by Professor Beverly Horsburgh (Please see "The Myth of a Model Minority: The Transformation of Knowledge into Power," 10 UCLA Women's L.J. 165).

Clear, carefully argued and sober.:
With a clarity and unpretentious use of language, with thoughtful supply of definitions, and the presentation of a methodical and structured argument Farber and Sherry take on the obscurantism and pretentious polemics of post-modern "scholarship". While their arguments and marshalling of facts are impressive, their style and form is also exemplary of the best in Western enlightened tradition. Very strongly recommended.