Mari Matsuda's book "We Won't Go Back"

[haplesshobo]

Well, I don't know if one can do a traditional literary review on this book since its not really a piece of literature, so you can't talk about the beauty of the writing, the development of the characters, etc.. Instead, its really a book that seeks to justify and expand the current affirmative action programs in response to the recent books criticizing affirmative action that focused on race.

The book is a mainly trying to explain the need for its vision of affirmative action, and it uses profiles throughout the book about minority individuals who have benefitted from affirmative action to put a personal face on the issue . It begins with a history to explain the context of how affirmative action arose, tries to show that its a 'big lie' that our society is color blind, and ends by explaining the need for reparations. However, in between those points, it gets sidetracked a lot as it rambles on about peripheral issuses that takes away from the focus of the book.

The writing itself is adequate but its voice is somewhat diluted since you have two different writers writing it instead of letting one person's voice tell the story. Reading the book felt too much like high school homework.

Even though the author is JA, the book is more about affirmative action in general instead of talking about asian american issuses or how affirmative action affects us. The essay on Diane Ho, the native Hawaiian, to represent asian americans is the shortest one, and it doesn't even show how affirmative action helped her get where she is today! It only talks about asian americans in terms of interethnic conflict, and how we should accept racial quotas at Lowell High School to further some broader civil rights issuses.

This isn't a critique of her ideas since I'm going to do that in another thread in the rant room.

Ultimately, the success of the book is about whether or not it can answer all the charges critics are making about affirmative action. That was the goal of the book, and so I'm judging it if it would convince a interested 18 year old who had no allegiance to either side on affirmative action. Or, could a pro-affirmative person use this book to refute all the charges of the anti-affirmative action side.

In the end, it doesn't do that at all in a cohernt or convincing manner and why I must consider this book a failure. It does make a few intersesting points and win a few battles, but it loses the war it fought. For example, Mari does a excellent job over a number of pages to refute the 'myth that affirmative action helps only the privileged' (181) among minorities. But, what if one turns it around, and argues that its unfair where it mostly helps the upper class blacks, who benefit the most from it even as it also helps a few poor black people as well. Well, she doesn't have a good answer for that and why affirmative action should look at race instead of class. So, in response as to why a black upper class, son of a neurosurgeon should benefit rather than po' white coalminer's son, she argues that this is okay as long as white people as a group are more succesful than black people as a group.

Its really disappointing considering the intellecutal firepower of the writers, Mari Matsuda and Charles Lawerence. As the first asian american to get tenure at a law school, I was expecting somebody so brilliant and persuasive that she couldn't be shut out. There wasn't a chain of logic that would convince the layreader, or an example that instantly clarifies and crystalizes the issue like the poor apalachian coalminer's son from west virgina. Instead, Mari criticizes them as 'at best silly hyperbole and at worst a sophisticated pseudo-intellectual asault' (215).

The problem is that the book will appeal to only the extreme fringes of the left. It won't convince a person in the middle or refute the charges of the critics. The groundwork for all its subsequent ideas are based on a marxist theology of community. And, they return to that concept again and again to argue all their points. If you're not a believer in that, you're not going to agree with any of her arguments for affirmative action.

You may understand the history of racism and agree on the need for equal oppurtunity, but you're going to be turned off by her talk of 'equality of results' and 'redistribution'. Even if you're a minority, you'll be turned off by her assertions that only minorities who will return and directly contribute as an activist should get benefit from affirmative action despite your own merits. This vision of community of hers won't appeal to most americans who pride themselves on their individualism.

Rating: 5.5 out of 10

[nola]

Fair enough. Looks like she simply makes the case for affirmative action as would I. Where would be right now as a nation including Asian Americans without it? Until something better takes its place like class-based affirmative action we can't complain. Have you come up with a better form of affirmative action? Stop the condescension about your disappointment that she's Asian America's first tenured law professor. I mean, your condescension sounds like YOU could have been Asian America's first tenured law professor and you obviously weren't. And did YOU write a book about hate speech? Sexist.

[hooligan]

Fair enough. Looks like she simply makes the case for affirmative action as would I. Where would be right now as a nation including Asian Americans without it? Until something better takes its place like class-based affirmative action we can't complain. Have you come up with a better form of affirmative action? Stop the condescension about your disappointment that she's Asian America's first tenured law professor. I mean, your condescension sounds like YOU could have been Asian America's first tenured law professor and you obviously weren't. And did YOU write a book about hate speech? Sexist.
Class-base AA will NEVER take into account the effects of racism. Familiar criticism and comments about Affirmative Action, come on hap, you can do better than that.
But, what if one turns it around, and argues that its unfair where it mostly helps the upper class blacks, who benefit the most from it even as it also helps a few poor black people as well. Well, she doesn't have a good answer for that and why affirmative action should look at race instead of class. So, in response as to why a black upper class, son of a neurosurgeon should benefit rather than po' white coalminer's son, she argues that this is okay as long as white people as a group are more succesful than black people as a group.

I find it ironic that you criticize her for making hyperboles when your review is full of them as well.

[haplesshobo]

Stop the condescension about your disappointment that she's Asian America's first tenured law professor. I mean, your condescension sounds like YOU could have been Asian America's first tenured law professor and you obviously weren't. And did YOU write a book about hate speech? Sexist.

Well, Mari does spend a chapter titled 'Tokens and Traitors' that basically goes after Clarence Thomas because he's black and does not share her views. Is there any difference? The condenscion heaped on Thomas because he's the second black supreme court justice. By their condescion, it sounded like it should have been her husband who should have gotten that position and he obvioulsy didn't.

Sure, they might have shown that he's not a good brother, but the personal attacks against him really didn't prove their point.

[nola]

OH PLEASE. The condescension you use was because she was the first tenured Asian American professor. It's not as if she went to law school setting out to be the first tenured Asian American law professor. When she wrote these books on affirmative action there was no talk about making it class-based or whatever to make it more equitable so anyone could have written a book to support affirmative action (except Asian guys on web forums of course). Talk about changing affirmative action like this has only come up in the last few years. And it's not like there weren't hundreds of other people who could have become Asian America's first tenured law professor. She didnt CHOOSE to be in that extraordinary position just like Krusiec didn't choose to represent Asians in a groundbreaking Asian American film. You guys are simply much harder on women on here.

So your only beef against her is Lowell and the fact that you don't support affimative action. So she is obviously not a "nutcase" as you online men to say. Most Asian Americans support affirmative action because we haven't found anything better to replace it. You haven't come up with what you think should replace affirmative action. So anyone who supports affirmative action is a traitor? Do you know how much you've benefitted from it? If you guys have a problem with it, why are NONE of you studying this stuff, studying social sciences, going into public interest law, or even in the streets, at protests or in activist groups? You can't complain unless you have a better solution or go into these fields yourself to change stuff.

[haplesshobo]

Its funny that you're accusing me of the same thing she does against Clarence Thomas. Reread how your first paragraph woudl sound if we had substituted Thomas for Matsuda.

And, I would disagree that when she wrote her book, people weren't writing about subsituting class for a narrowly defined affirmative action based only on race. The example about who should theorticially benefit from affirmative action for admissions into a university between a poor, white coalminer's son from west virgina vs a black, rich son of a nuerosurgeon who grew up in Park Avenue showed how affirmative action really didn't benefit the people it should have and why a class based affirmative action would prove more just than a race based affirmative action. In the book, she talks about that example but still argues that a upper class black should reap the rewards of affirmative action before a poor white boy.


I also have other criticisms of her ideas and find some of her points rather dubious, but this isn't supposed to be a critque of them but a review of the book.

[nola]

Being the first AA tenured professor also doesn't give her any powers or rights. You can't compare the two. A Supreme Court justice is the most powerful position in the country and Clarence Thomas is anti-affirmative action. Affimative action helps all minorities and women. Also you don't gun for being the first person of any race to be the first tenured law professor. You don't, it just happens. I'm pretty sure Thomas gunned to be Supreme Court justice for decades.

I would disagree that when she wrote her book, people weren't writing about subsituting class for a narrowly defined affirmative action based only on race. The example about who should theorticially benefit from affirmative action for admissions into a university between a poor, white coalminer's son from west virgina vs a black, rich son of a nuerosurgeon who grew up in Park Avenue showed how affirmative action really didn't benefit the people it should have and why a class based affirmative action would prove more just than a race based affirmative action. In the book, she talks about that example but still argues that a upper class black should reap the rewards of affirmative action before a poor white boy.
If what you're saying about the book is true the idea didn't gain popularity until recently. Most people including myself would have thought a class-based instead of race-based affirmative action sounded very racist because people didn't think class-based would be equitable.

[hooligan]

In the end, it doesn't do that at all in a cohernt or convincing manner and why I must consider this book a failure.
best line, ever. call me condescending, but have you studied affirmative action at all, outside the context of this book?

[hooligan]

If people want to read more reviews (perhaps a little more even handed reviews) amazon.com has some decent ones.

[haplesshobo]

even handed? i'm just judging the book on what it set out to do, and i think it failed. its supposed to be a defense of affirmative action, but i don't see many readers being swayed by the arguments or the vision of affirmative action of mari matsuda. they try to answer all the criticisms of affirmative action, but I noticed some holes and flaws in their defense. let's say person x attacks affirmative action. person y defends it by reading this book, and using the arguments. but, person x, could easily point out the flaws in the book's arguments and therefore the book fails to be a good counterpoint to all the attacks of affirmative action. .

and, i still question some of their assumptions they make. it all sounds nice and pretty, but if you stop and think about it, it doesn't really hold up. i even looked through their end notes for evidence to back up some of those assumptions but couldn't.

the people who would love this book and who gave it generous reviews on amazon are probably very liberal and they're not the ones who need to be convinced since they are already support affirmative action. outside of a college course, i don't see this book being very popular with americans. it didn't even get published as a paperback, which is some reflection of its limited appeal. and, as i pointed out, you need to buy in their vision of community to believe in their vision of affirmative action, which most americans would have trobule doing with our history emphasizing individualism

[hooligan]

My question still stands, have you studied AA at all outside the context of this book?

[haplesshobo]

i didn't know i needed a phD in affirmative action to understand the book? maybe, that was the problem and i didn't already know all the answers before reading a introductory book that was supposed to defend and sway somebody who hadn't pledged alliegance to either side on the issue yet.

[kimpossible]

Is everything okay in here?

[haplesshobo]

Is everything okay in here?

sure, as long as people can stop being so damn condescending and elitist towards anybody who dares not tow the line.

its all about pan asian unity, but only under the ideas and banner of the the elitists. cause when you question their icon, matsuda, they accuse you of ignorance and disregard your criticisms.

all i did in this thread was review the book and rate it if it did what it set out to do. it didn't, and others have commented on that as well. even one of the other moderators on this forum wrote that the book was unconvincing to the moderator.

[kimpossible]

Just hang in there and defend your views/points. It's not always about winning. You're doing a good job. I'm sure even if they don't agree with you they can appreciate good debate.

[hooligan]

1. You don't accept her premise meaning you're already coming in with biases about Affirmative Action. So, regardless or not you read the book, your mind's already made up.

2. Recycled arguments that are very familiar to many people who've read about Affirmative Action and also repeated by our political "elite" when they describe Affirmative Action.

3. Obviously, you've already made up your mind that Affirmative Action hurts APIAs when you don't really understand how, in fact, it has helped APIAs.

4. You sit in a position of privelege where you've had the time to read her arguments, yet you still repeat the same ideas that many, anti-AA mainstream pundits will argue. Adding nothing to the actual debate.

[haplesshobo]

1. No, it has nothing to do with coming in with biases. If you search for Matsuda, you'll find that another one of the more liberal moderators on this forum found her arguments in the book unconvincing as well. The problem is that she starts off with this radical concept of community, which most people won't accept, as the base of her arguments for affirmative action. If you don't buy into her vision of community, its hard to buy into her other arguments.

2. She's the one who brings up the arguments to refute them, but does a poor job on it. Besides, if you reread the thread, most of it was focused on her essay so I don't understand how the arguments were recycled unless others have been criticizing the same essay.

But, I must say, I am disappointed that I'm not as original as I thought I was in using cross cultural comparisons and using Stuyvesant as an example of a school that isn't diverse but which has still prospered.

3. Its not my fault that Matsuda doesn't devote a lot of time about Asians in the book, except for the sacrifices we must make. Look, most of the pesonal stories about minorities talked about affirmative action helped them. But, that wasn't the case with the native Hawiian, Diane Ho.

4. See 2. I didn't know anti-AA mainstream pundits talked about Lowell, and compared the situation to Stuy.

[haplesshobo]

1. You don't accept her premise meaning you're already coming in with biases about Affirmative Action. So, regardless or not you read the book, your mind's already made up.

3. Obviously, you've already made up your mind that Affirmative Action hurts APIAs when you don't really understand how, in fact, it has helped APIAs.


You keep on insisting that I was biased and that's why I found the book unconvincing. So, how about this quote from somebody else who also read the book:

"I read Matsuda's chapter on "We Will Not Be Used" and think her argument, while very impassioned and eloquent, was very unconvincing for affirmative action in higher education. The arguments of critical race theorists are typically more on rhetoric and story-telling, but even more so. "

in this thread: http://forums.yellowworld.org/showthread.php?t=2241&page=4&highlight=matsuda

Or, are you going to accuse everybody who found the book unconvincing to be biased from the start?