The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"Classified": Why Publish with a Conservative Press? And a Review and Podcast Update
A reader asked a reasonable question. You claim, he said, that your new book Classified: The Untold Story of Racial Classification in America, is a non-polemical, scholarly look at the modern history of racial classification in the United States. If so, why didn't you publish the book with an academic press, which would be the logical place for an academic to publish a non-polemical, scholarly book? Why instead publish with a conservative publisher that, whatever its other virtues, publishes some "right-wing" polemics, making it more likely that people will dismiss your book as such without even picking it up?
I have had a great experience with my publisher (Bombardier Books), but the short answer is that I wrote the book intending for it to be published by an academic press, and I fully expected to get several offers from major presses. After all, I have published two other successful academic books, I could provide advanced praise from academics across the political spectrum, and the topic is both inherently interesting and also "hot," virtually guaranteeing much better sales than the average university press book. Moreover, unlike my last two academic books, I had a respected book agent representing me, which is helpful in persuading editors to take a book proposal seriously.
So what happened? My agent submitted a lengthy book proposal plus a sample chapter to eight university presses. Eight editors turned it down flat, without even sending it out for peer review. By contrast, I submitted my Lochner book to six presses, four of them sent it out for peer review, and three of them offered to publish it.
My take on this is that these editors, with one exception, simply refused to consider a book that was (a) about race; and (b) wasn't overtly "woke" (or "progressive" or whatever you want to call it). The exception was an editor at one of the top presses who was extremely interested in my book. He and I spent an hour discussing it on the phone. At the end of the conversation, he told me that he would take it to his editorial board to get their ok to send it out for peer review. And a week or two later, I got a rejection letter, meaning that despite the recommendation from the editor to go forward, the board would not even consent to have the proposal sent out for peer review.
I don't have permission to share a couple of other stories from friends of my with similar recent experiences trying to get books published by university presses, but my conclusion is that university presses, while perhaps not an entirely lost cause, are much more likely to reject book proposals on ideological grounds than they were a decade ago. In part this is because editors are more ideological, in part because editors and editorial boards are scared to death of provoking the wrath of wokesters on social media by publishing wrongthink, and in part because the professors on whom they rely for peer review are more likely to reject books on ideological grounds. All in all, one of many bad signs of the increased politicization of what should be ideologically neutral academic institutions.
Meanwhile, here's a roundup of recent podcasts and reviews for Classified.
Podcasts
Podcast with Coleman Hughes, conversations with Coleman
Jewish Institute for Liberal Values
Reviews
Robert VerBruggen, Washington Examiner
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Was the person who asked the question ignorant or did he/she expect anything other than denial from academia on a race issue that fails to push the woke agenda?
We look down on the Inquisition pushing its ridiculous PC. We look down on the vile Commie party of North Korea and China allowing no dissent. We destroyed the Nazis. We are getting there.
Fascism is involves nominal private ownership of industry, with strong government "parnership". As opposed to heavy socialism or communism, with state ownership.
Marching orders are issued, and they behave, censoring political opposition.
This is not a joke or imagined overexaggeration of the occasional real issue. Recall the NY governor who wanted to hurt banks that had gun manufacturer accounts. "This hurts your reputation, and, you know, bad reputation might cause your government contracts to break. Things break you know." *
* A mayor would probably more loudly object to the Italian mafia reference, than the actual mafia-like behavior.
To borrow from a nearby thread, POS.
POSses.
Fascist POSses.
Although the plural accrues on the word piece, not shit, so it's pieces of shit, or PsOS.
tRuST thE ScIEnCE!
Science is a synonym for repeatability. Predictive validity is the ultimate validation. Failed promises are not science. The CDC is a failed scammer, and attack running dog for the Democrat Party.
That being said, nothing the lawyer profession does has any validity. All they have is men with guns, like the scumbag outfits I mentioned, the Inquisition, the vile Commies, the deceased Nazis.
When an accidental historical experiment validates their act, like the Mandatory Sentencing guidelines that dropped crime 40%, but caused lawyer unemployment? They stop them. They are just another self dealing crime crew.
When a crime crew infiltrates a government and controls it, what is the remedy? The Inquisitors were beheaded, ending their crime spree. Good model.
Inquisitors were not usually beheaded.
Predictable. You obviously violated the commandment "Any Bad Outcome for Black Folks is Whitey's Fault".
But that's true. There are only trivial, small racial differences, not counting dick size. All racial disparity is from the bastardy rate. Try surviving in the hood. It takes quite a bit of brain power. The bastardy rate comes from the white feminist lawyer. It destroyed the black family that endured and survived tremendous stresses.
Proof? Very dark African immigrants with intact patriarchal families are top performers.
You poor oppressed male straight whitey. Merely dominant in almost every power structure, but nowadays sometimes stuff happens that doesn’t directly benefit you.
How will you survive? Get bitter and racially charged, I guess!
Sari Boy, stop being a denier. You need to disclose how much of your income or that of your employer comes from government. Until you do, you are dismissed.
He's a government employee! lol so that means he's less educated then his private sector peers, but overpaid.
If you wish to compare educations and economic value, BravoCharlieDelta, I'm your huckleberry.
Shall we consider what the market tells us you and I are worth, starting with billing rates?
I reckon it's time for you to <a href="I">claim you were just foolin' about.
Revvie Boy. What is your law subject, and what is your billing rate? I want to explain to the reader.
“If you wish to compare educations and economic value, ”
How ‘bout you start by demonstrating some semblance of it in your comments?
It's "I'm your huckle bearer" dumbass.
Val Kilmer, who said the words, has indicated I am correct and you are wrong.
The screenplay indicates I am correct and you are wrong. (Actually, it is screenplays -- more than one draft is available -- but reason.com limits links.)
Val Kilmer, who wrote the book, indicates that I am correct and you are wrong.
Other than that, great comment! You are precisely the commenter this blog wants and deserves.
Val Kilmer is a historian!
SCIENCE!
How perfectly racist of you, Sacrcastr0. The merits of Bernstein's efforts as an individual don't matter. What matters is that he is white and male.
“Merely dominant in almost every power structure”
Facts not in evidence and contradicted by the claims of the post’s author. But otherwise an near perfect example of present day nonsense jargon. Congratulations, you’ve learned how to mimic fools!
Sorry you didn’t understand my or Prof. Bernstein’s post.
Yes. I do. Accusation is accurate. It was an dumb comment.
The OP doesn't talk about the race of any of the publishers it accuses of woke censorship,
and 'dominant in every power structure' has a pretty clear meaning; not really nonsense.
There is not the slightest evidence that either wreckinball or Prof Bernstein is dominant in any power structure, much less the relevant one, which is academic publishing.
Sounds more like "Any bad outcome for white conservatives is the result of ideological conformity or anti-white racism, or maybe 'coastal elites.' "
Who knows? Maybe it's just not that good a book.
That was not the opinion of the individual who complained that Prof. Bernstein didn't "give" his book to an "academic" publisher nor of the editor who, it turns out, couldn't get his board to have the book evaluated.
Is ignoring evidence a specialty of yours?
Could it be the reason my book was rejected was because it’s mor partisan than previously?
No, it is the publishers who have gone woke.
I suspect you are not completely wrong, but odds are both you and they have moved fringeward.
Would it matter that he'd moved a bit rightward, if the academic press weren't engaged in ideological censorship to begin with? It's not like he's remotely so right-wing in his views on this topic that he rightfully ought to be beyond the pale; His views are well within the mainstream.
If the academic press won't publish mainstream views, that's problem with them, not the fault of him failing to be on the left bank of that stream.
Yes, Brett, publishers police content. They always have. It’s deeply anti-libertarian, and frankly unprecedented in it’s entitlement how the right wing demands that their views be not criticized, and indeed platformed.
You don’t have a right to all views being respected by all people and institutions.
Of course, you think there is a secret coordinated cabal whose believes in ideology over professionalism, duty, and profit. Can’t tell you what to do there - seems futile to fight such a powerful and ruthless foe as you have conjured!
It's less conjured then your silly stupid man made of straw.
He wrote a scholarly defense of Lochner...and they published it.
He wrote a critique of racial preferences, which I've read...incidentally, he expresses some sympathy for the idea that the descendants of people actually enslaved in America might get some preferential consideration.
But he objects to everyone else climbing on the bandwagon with dubious and (as is the point of the book) vague and hard-to-classify categories of beneficiaries. Ultimately, he suggests separation of race and state, except perhaps for (more properly administered) medical research.
Is it a mere right-wing screed? He certainly has his share of scholarly citations. Are those up to his previous standard? Well, he says they never peer-reviewed it, it never got to that point.
Occam's Razor suggests that these presses are open to libertarian defenses of Lochner but not to questioning our system of racial preferences. Libertarians are not outside the pale as such, but *real* anti-racists (in the sense of critics of *all* racial discrimination) are suspect at best. The icing on the cake is that, though he doesn't engage in crude mockery himself, he shines a light on some of the most-mockable aspects of the current regime.
And I would suspect that these presses themselves practice some form of totally-not-racist discrimination. But maybe I'm wrong.
Yes different views will hit differently.
It can have citations and be written in good faith and still bad. It has some remarkable assumptions about good law having bright lines.
I attended a meeting of the cabal a while back (excellent breakfast spread by the way) and one of the items on the agenda was blocking David Bernstein from publishing his book with an academic press.
Thanks for mocking what no one said. It shows that you are a moron, which is always a good thing to know about someone.
“When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”
That's all you're saying. You're hardly even pretending that it's not censorship anymore, you're just asserting that your side is entitled to censor because you got enough control of these institutions to do it.
you're just asserting that your side is entitled to censor because you got enough control of these institutions to do it.
No one is shutting down Bombardier.
Lots of conservatives get books published, by Bombardier and other publishers.
Is it possible, in your mind, that the book just isn't that good? I don't know. I haven't read it. I read a few of Bernstein's posts and didn't find them very interesting. YMMV.
But conspiracy isn't the only possible explanation, you know.
The role of book editors is basically to consider whether a book proposal sounds interesting and sounds like it will contribute to the academic debate. To ensure the proposal is likely to result in a "good" book, they send it out for peer review. And then as a double-check, when the mansucript is completed, they send it out for peer review again. In my case, no one would even send the proposal out for peer review. So I don't take this as a conclusion that the book would not be "good," but that it doesn't sound like it would be interesting or contribute to an academic debate. Now, for some editors, it just might be outside what they consider their areas of interest, and pass for that reason. But when 8 editors totally pass on a proposal that has the virtues I enumerated in the post--an experience author of other successful u.p. books on a 'hot' topic' that will undoubtedly be one of their better sellers, without bothering to consult actual academics in the field well... reaching the conclusion that there is ideological/political sifting going on is quite natural.
By "good" I meant meeting the editors' standards, so "sounds interesting and sounds like it will contribute to the academic debate" is pretty much that.
the conclusion that there is ideological/political sifting going on is quite natural.
It's not impossible. Neither is it the only possible explanation. OTOH, you say the book is non-ideological, and the Summary and Overview you provide here support that. But if it's not ideological, why would it be rejected for ideological reasons?
The fact is that no academic press showed interest. Whether that's because they are all conforming to some ideology or something else does not seem clear.
"But if it's not ideological, why would it be rejected for ideological reasons?"
You have surely heard the claim that it's not sufficient to be non-racist, or against racism, but rather that unless you are explicitly "antiracist" in ways that satisfy those who use that loaded term, you are in fact at best complicit in racism, and probably will be deemed racist.
So in an era in which all sorts of academic institutions have proclaimed themselves to be committed to antiracism, being "non-ideological" is in fact wrongthink, because there is an ideology that one must be committed to, and explicitly try to advance. That doesn't mean that the editors and editorial boards are all committed to this ideology. Some are just afraid of those who are.
I have heard the claim, but I'm wondering if all seven editors who turned it down out of hand were behaving as you suspect.
One or a few, maybe, but you are making quite a generalization. All I can say is if an editor who decided against the book on the merits learned that you were publicly describing the rejection as based on some ideological motive, or intimidation, he would be quite unhappy, and rightly so.
Are there no just editors at academic presses?
On this evidence, probably not.
Acquaint yourself with Occam's Razor.
Sounds interesting seems more than ministerial to me.
You didn’t pass muster in this one and so cry bias. Tale as old as writing.
You act in a biased faction and cry "not up to my standards".
A tale at least as old.
"You don’t have a right to all views being respected by all people and institutions."
Mention of a "right" aside, replace "all" with "any" and you will find yourself in the same ballpark as this debate.
No one is saying this book shouldn’t be published. Take it up with Bernstein who is unhappy particular publishers didn’t care for his book this time.
This very comment section gives the lie to your assertion.
Who here is saying this book shouldn’t be published anywhere? Show me.
The necessary debunking of your hypothetical takes place in Bernstein's article where it is told that a positive editor was preemptively squelched by a review board apparently less open to the non-woke than he was.
The problem is academia has drifted so far left that even mildly Right ideas are now considered extremely heterodox. That, combined with a student body increasingly more fragile with skin more delicate that the finest silk, who consider any opposing views to be literal violence causing them to retreat to bright and cheerfully painted Safe Spaces filled with puppies, kittens, and coloring books makes publishing any work that challenges the prevailing orthodoxy increasingly dangerous and simply not worth the backlash.
The division is now so complete that no bridge can cross the chasm and no opposing views are worthy of even seeing the light of day, let alone being open for dialogue and debate.
Does it strike you as strange that a context that tends toward reason, science, modernity, inclusiveness, education, achievement, and the reality-based world favors liberal-libertarian mainstream thinking over conservative thinking?
Only if you think there is only one legitimate way of thinking and that for the first time in human history that one philosophy has a monopoly on all the answers.
One should be deeply suspicious of any institution where all members march in lock step. That can only be the result of suppression.
Regardless it is only though free and open inquiry and debate that ideas can stand or fall on their own merits. Only those with weak beliefs and ideas feel the need to suppress opposition and scrutiny. Those that cannot stand up to ridicule deserve to be cast onto the ash heap of history.
" One should be deeply suspicious of any institution where all members march in lock step. That can only be the result of suppression. "
You must despise America's conservative-controlled campuses.
Rev:
Is there some reason that we shouldn't try to gain a deeper understanding of the classification systems used by the federal government? Does "reason" and "science" and "modernity" imply that this topic should not be considered in your view?
I believe that reason, science, and modernity require the opposite.
Mr. Welker:
The assertion to which I responded was that academia has drifted left (a point frequently lamented at this blog).
Relevant to that assertion is the point that our strongest research and teaching institutions are operated by and for the liberal-libertarian mainstream, while conservatives turn nearly every campus they get their hands on into a fourth-tier (or worse), dogma-enforcing, nonsense-teaching, academic freedom-flouting school. In more colorful terms, a yahoo factory or hayseed farm.
Also relevant to that assertion are attributes of the left (science, reason, modernity, inclusiveness) and of the right (superstition, backwardness, bigotry, dogma).
My point is that it should surprise no one that academia -- especially legitimate, strong academia -- would tilt left. At the marketplace of ideas, conservatism (rooted in stale, supernatural, insular, and sometimes ugly thinking) is no match for its modern, mainstream competition.
Claims in contradiction of the evidence. You can start your defense rationalizing social justice causation fairy tales with science, real science, you know the kind with reliable claims and systems of proof, smart guy.
It would be strange that you thought so if we didn't already know that you are an idiot.
Do you work in academia, or at an academic press?
"Could it be the reason my book was rejected was because it’s mor partisan than previously?" There was nothing the least bit "partisan" about my proposal. Here is the description directly from the proposal:
SUMMARY
Thanks to immigration and intermarriage, in the last fifty years the United States has gone from a society with a large white majority, a black minority, and a relatively small group of “others,” to a society where the largest “official” minority by far is Hispanic, and, moreover, people who identify as Hispanics, Native Americans, and Asian
Americans outnumber African Americans by more than two-to-one. A growing group of Americans who consider themselves to be multiracial has added to the ethnic and racial diversity.
Not surprisingly, interest and controversy over Americans’ self-identity has grown dramatically. Public figures ranging from politicians like Senators Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris, sports stars like Tiger Woods, political activists like Shaun King, Rachel Dolezal, and even criminal defendants like George Zimmerman have had their racial and ethnic self-identities widely scrutinized, criticized, and defended in both the popular press and in serious academic works.
Few Americans realize that regardless of whatever conclusions public opinion arrives at about racial and ethnic identity, American law has specific criteria for which groups are deemed to be “official” minorities, and what criteria one must meet to be a member of each group. In short, if a person comes within a law’s definition of Black/African American, Hispanic, Native American, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, or
Asian, one is deemed to be a member of that group. If one does not, one is deemed to be
“white.”
When group such as Arabs or Armenians have what I call “legal whiteness,” that means that government agencies to not collect statistics about that group beyond lumping it in within the white category. Members of that group have no way of showing discriminatory hiring or other patterns based on government statistics, and are not eligible for sometimes-lucrative affirmative action preferences, such as preferences for minority business enterprises in government contracts. By contrast, members of the groups that do not have legal whiteness are the beneficiaries of government tracking of employment and education statistics to ensure nondiscrimination, and, in general, are eligible for government preference programs that benefit minorities. This leads to certain anomalies.
In perhaps the oddest twist, “Hispanic” people who self-identify as white and have one hundred percent European ancestry do not have legal whiteness.
This book describes how the relevant legal categories arose; successful and failed attempts to expand which groups lack legal whiteness; how membership in the categories is enforced; how courts and government agencies have dealt with ambiguous cases; and how the current racial classifications affect American life beyond civil rights enforcement and affirmative action in areas ranging from the adoption of children with Native American heritage to the substance of medical research.
The book is primarily positive rather than normative in its approach, but raises obvious questions about whether the ossification of racial and ethnic categories in the 1970s was sensible at the time, and whether today these categories can be deemed fair and non-arbitrary. In light of the Black Lives Matter movement and related intellectual ferment, the book also raises the question of whether our current system of racial and ethnic classification distracts relevant authorities from the plight of African Americans whose ancestors faced state and private violence for hundreds of years in favor of groups composed primarily of post-1965 immigrants and their descendants.
And the overview:
BOOK OVERVIEW
Racial classification by law has been as American as apple pie since the nineteenth century. Modern Americans shake our heads when we read about the absurd lengths authorities went to in the past to classify Americans by race, for example dividing mixedrace black Americans into categories such as “quadroons” and “octoroons,” and engaging in pseudo-science and pseudo-anthropology to decide which groups from the geographic region of Asia counted as “Asian” and which counted as “white” under American immigration and naturalization law.
Ironically, despite our mixture of amusement, bemusement, and horror when learning about the crude racial categorization of the pre-civil rights era, racial and ethnic classifications are ubiquitous in American life. Applying for a job, applying for a mortgage, applying for university admission, applying for citizenship, applying for government contracts, and much more involves checking a box stating whether one is white, Hispanic, Asian, African American, or Native American, among other classifications. Not only that, but the categories the government imposes are direct descendants of the pre-civil rights categories.
For most Americans in 2020, the categories of “African American,” “Native American,” “Asian American,” and “Hispanic” seem natural and uncontroversial. And yet there is no inherent logic to using these categories, nor to their precise scope--and the same, for that matter, is true of the category “white.” As a federal judge has pointed out, the categories are not consistent with one another: “one group [African Americans] is defined by race, another [Hispanics] by culture, another [Asians] by country of origin and another [Native Americans] by blood.”
The Hispanic category generally includes everyone from Spanish immigrants
(including people whose first language is Basque or Catalan, not Spanish) to Cuban Americans of mixed European extraction to Puerto Ricans of mixed African, European, and indigenous heritage to individuals fully descended from indigenous Mexicans. Members of the disparate groups that fall into the “Hispanic” or “Latino” category often self-identify as white, feel more connected to the general white population than to other Spanish-speaking national-origin groups, and, according to one study, on average diverge from members of other Hispanic demographic groups in political outlook as much or more than from the general white population. Moreover, census data show substantial differences in levels of income and educational attainment among the national origin groups in which data about ‘Hispanics’ are usually classified. Not all Hispanics, meanwhile, consider themselves to be part of a minority group, and some who claim minority status for themselves would reject that status for others--for example, they might reject it for well-educated professionals who immigrate from South American countries. People of Portuguese or Brazilian ancestry, who are not of Spanish culture or origin, are nevertheless sometimes defined as Hispanic by legislative fiat.
The Asian-American category includes people descended from wildly disparate national groups who do not have similar physical features, practice different religions, speak different languages, vary dramatically in culture, and sometimes have long histories of conflict with one another. In group terms, Asian Americans have extremely varying levels of socioeconomic success in the United States —Indian-Americans, for example, on average have significantly higher-than-average incomes and levels of education, while on average the incomes of Hmong and Burmese Americans are wellbelow the American mean. Korean-Americans have the highest rate of business formation for any ethnic group in the United States, while Laotians have the lowest. The Asian category meanwhile excludes people from the Western part of Asia, such as
Muslim Americans of Yemeni origin, who may face discrimination based on skin color (often dark), religion, and Arab ethnicity. Only a minority of people in the Asian category identify with the “Asian” or “Asian American” labels.
Under most federal rules, the Native American category includes someone of only remote Indian ancestry who has inherited tribal membership, while excluding someone with much closer genetic and cultural connections to the Native American community who is not a member of a recognized tribe. The question of whether the category of African American should, in some contexts, be limited to descendants of American slaves or include African and Caribbean immigrants and their descendants is increasingly debated, as is the question of whether multi-racial individuals with a non-black-identified parent should be included in the African-American category.
In almost all cases, the extant legal categories were not created by Congress or state legislatures, where they would have been subject to public discussion and debate, but by administrative agencies. These agencies have used their discretion to determine which groups are covered by classification rules, and how to prove membership in those groups. The modern history of racial and ethnic categorization by the government is therefore, among other things, an example of what legal scholars call administrative constitutionalism, with the bureaucracy creating important baseline rules for society with little input from elected officials and negligible public debate.
In most cases, those gathering information about people’s race rely on selfidentification and voluntary compliance with general norms regarding such identification. Universities, for example, rarely if ever investigate whether an applicant is “really” a member of the group whose box the applicant checked.
Americans, though, even experts on race and the law, tend not to recognize that racial and ethnic classification is not always simply a matter of self-identification and the honor system.
In some contexts, legal rules dictated whether someone may claim “minority” status are enforced, and people have been denied their claimed minority status, resulting in them being denied government contracts or even fired from their jobs for “racial fraud.”
The book starts by addressing two related issues. The book first addresses what categories governments at the federal and state levels use to define who are the “official” racial and ethnic minorities in the United States for data gathering, civil rights enforcement, and affirmative action purposes, the basic boundaries of those categories, and how those categories came to be. The second issue discussed by the book is what evidence individuals must provide to demonstrate membership in these categories.
The book next discusses different groups that have been on the borders of legal whiteness, and whose success or failure at achieving official minority status has defined the boundary of legal whiteness. Hispanics, South Asians, and members of American Indian tribes (regardless of their level of connection to their tribes) lack legal whiteness.
Americans of Arab, Iranian, Italian, Jewish, Polish, and other “ethnic” backgrounds, by contract, are almost always considered legally white, despite efforts by activists to have them legally defined as minorities. The relevant chapters discuss how this all has played out, as well as the many complications that arise in defining who qualifies as Hispanic and Native American.
Finally, the book discusses situations apart from civil rights enforcement and affirmative action is which government classification has a significant impact on American life. The chapter on Native Americans discusses Indian identity under the Major Crimes Act and the Indian Child Welfare Act. Under these laws, the rights of criminal defendants and of children whose welfare is in the hands of the courts, respectively, depend on whether courts deem them to be “Indians.” The final chapter discusses how the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health have required bio-medical researchers to classify their subjects by race, with ripple effects on the medical profession more generally. In a break from the mostly neutral tone of the rest of the book, this chapter is highly critical of the government requiring biomedical researchers to use “racial” categories that have no underlying scientific validity.
I don't really have a doubt that if I had submitted this exact proposal in 2009, the time when I was submitting my Lochner proposal, I'd have had multiple offers from university presses.
Thanks David, sounds like a very interesting book. I just ordered it from Amazon.
Awesome, thanks!
I thought the VerBruggen review was partcularly good, and would imagine it prompted a few purchases, although some readers may have finished the review and thought "that review was so throrough I don't even need to buy the book now!"
Same here. $9.99 for Kindle edition.
That being said, I suggested my pasty white daughter identify as African American at a top business school. She did not claim to be African American. She identified as such. It was a feeling. She got a full ride, then worth $130000, now worth $160000, after multiple interviews in person. She attended the meetings of the African American Student Association. No one said a word. The school got to add her to their diversity statistics.
Nobody believes this story, both because schools don't operate that way and because it would require that some woman once agreed to have sex with you.
Davey Boy. There is credibility with you, and there is a savings of $130000.
God Bless the PC delusional people for saving me $130000.
Clearly, this is within bounds of something that should be published by an academic press.
The liberals who say you just aren't smart enough or good enough are trying to gas light you.
Supplying more evidence to someone who has already shown that he is determined to ignore that which you already presented is an obvious example of launching oneself on a Fool's Errand.
"Why instead publish with a conservative publisher that, whatever its other virtues, publishes some "right-wing" polemics..."
From the publishers website:
So, Bernstein's book isn't the problem, it's the ideological academic press editors that are the problem. In response, Bernstein published his book with a press that explicitly focuses on ideological writings.
You go to war with the publishers you have, not the publishers you wish to have.
Which is part of the reason the culture war, though not quite over, has been settled.
Well, suppose that's true? China seems to have won *its* culture war against reactionary and dissenting elements. That says nothing about whether they're right.
You don’t meet a lot of End of History guys these days.
I do not contend and do not believe that the current culture war is the last war.
I sense it is quite likely the final one to be observed by most or all of today's Americans, though.
Keep imagining your triumphs. Your shock will be all the sweeter for us.
What's been settled is that your side is going to get a whipping over its performance in office and otherwise.
Among my curiosities is that Bernstein makes no effort to hide his belief that academia is dominated by ultra far mega superduper radical leftist totalitarians who persecute conservatives. Okay, if that's the case, why would you want to publish with an academic press? Why would you want to have your even-handed, in-no-way-ideological work associated with such vipers?
You have to give the other guy a chance to do the right thing, before you're entitled to criticize them for doing the wrong thing. That's pretty basic.
That's post-hoc reasoning for you.
It's like the law school student who submits their final exam in Bernstein's class, and gets a C on it. It's only after they get their grade that they claim Bernstein is just ideologically biased and that's why he gave the paper a C (because the student knows it's an A paper). Had Bernstein given the paper an A, then the student would claim he is a fair and impartial grader.
As long as the student never has to confront the fact that maybe they wrote a C paper, all is well.
"Bernstein makes no effort to hide his belief that academia is dominated by ultra far mega superduper radical leftist totalitarians who persecute conservatives."
LOL, no. Not what I believe. Mr. Hook, though, makes no effort to hide his belief that anyone who disagrees with him is a right-wing caricature.
LOL, no. Not what I believe about people I disagree with, either.
So when you throw around "far left," "radical left," "totalitarian," etc to describe academia or the media, that's just for show? It's hard to distinguish when you write with critical purpose or just therapeutic venting.
I'm pretty confident that I've never described the media or academic as "totalitarian." And many academic fields and departments are dominated by the far left, and work on race in particular is dominated by the sort of people whose views I describe in this post, who believe, among other things, that encouraging Americans to have "white racial consciousness" is a good thing: https://reason.com/volokh/2021/10/02/white-racial-consciousness-as-a-dangerous-progressive-project/
But I also recognize that most people in the academy are more mainstream "liberals," albeit gradually losing ground to the more radical left.
Why, in your judgment, have conservatives been losing ground at the marketplace of ideas that is American academia (strong research and teaching institutions, especially)?
Thank you.
Prof. B's remark was that "mainstream 'liberals'" have been losing ground. Conservatives have rarely had a whole lot of ground to lose in those prestige institutions. Let's just assume it's because conservatives are all drooling idiots who believe the moon is made of green cheese.
So back to the actual question - why have the fanatical leftists been displacing the regular, less-crazy leftists?
Does anyone who isn't a fanatical leftist count as a "clinger"?
"why have the fanatical leftists been displacing the regular, less-crazy leftists?"
Because the regular leftists have lives, the fanatics actually put in the work to take things over.
'most people in the academy are more mainstream "liberals," albeit gradually losing ground to the more radical left'
Almost all are willing collaborators. And will be until the end.
Elsewhere in Reason they have an interview with Michael Shermer, which exemplifies this. He's a guy who helped turn Scientific American into the primarily political magazine that does a bit of science that it has become, and now he's complaining that they turfed him out because in the end, HE wasn't woke enough.
Like he didn't help purge enough others in the process of transforming SA from a mildly left wing science popularizing magazine to a radical left wing rag that carries a bit of science.
This is how I know you don't read SA. It's not a political magazine. It's largely a bunch of pretty dry articles on identifying a hot new protein or the latest cool things ticks have been discovered to do.
If you find it to be mostly politics, that's something your brain is putting in there.
I read Scientific America from the 70's to the 90's. When I started reading it as a kid, it was largely apolitical. By the 80's, you could count on the lead articles having some political spin. These days they spin like a neutron star. Even Shermer got flung away by the centrifugal force, and he's wildly to the left of the American public.
Yeah, they have some science in there, too, but the politics is pretty relentless, it's about half the content.
I read it now, though not cover to cover. The papers it publishes are largely quite removed from politics, unless you think octopus neuroscience is political.
So I don't know what the heck you are talking about, unless you have such confirmation bias that one political opinion ruins the whole issue.
So the fish doesn't notice the water. Shocking.
Looking at their "latest stories" on the website, how about,
"Biden Signs Historic Climate Bill as Scientists Applaud"
Yeah, that's the so-called "inflation reduction" act, I think they actually nailed it, it certainly isn't an inflation reduction act, but how is this science?
Or
"Nuclear war could spark global famine"
So, nuclear winter is back?
Or
"Telehealth Is Key to Trans Healthcare".
Yeah, it's about how to circumvent state laws prohibiting sex change for minors.
They've also got interesting stuff on black holes, but in the 70's they'd have been pretty much nothing BUT science.
Ah. You don't have a subscription. This issue is on black holes, not a very political topic.
I'll pull from the front page:
-Black Hole information paradox
-New Phase of Matter Opens Portal to Extra Time Dimension
-Spiders Seem to Have REM-like Sleep and May Even Dream
-What Is Paxlovid Rebound, and How Common Is It?
-If T. Rex’s Beady-Eyed Glare Terrifies You, It Should
-What Is the New Langya Virus, and Should We Be Worried?
-Why Thinking Hard Wears You Out
It's not me not seeing the water - I know politics when I see it. It's you fastening onto anything with politics you disagree with and being unable to see anything else.
That's not healthy at all.
If you can’t be collegial with people who want to mutilate children, jail political wrongthinkers, and systematically turn America into a Soviet-style dictatorship, then academia may not be for you Mr. Hook.
That's on you, chief.
I have plenty of Republican friends. Sorry you don't seem capable of the same for Democrats.
Seems a sad way to be if you can't see that people are about a lot more than their politics.
I suspect that (especially at the University of Chicago, whose press published his Lochner book) libertarian analysis is still acceptable to publish. After all, while academia hates Lochner, it's not the personal, visceral hate of someone who actually had to work long hours baking bread and hated every moment of it, but didn't dare quit because they had families to support. This is more of an abstract question...an academic issue, as it were.
But racial preferences *are* a personal, triggering subject. They may not have done sweatshop labor, and feel only a vague connection to those who do, but they are up to their eyebrows in administering woke preferences and don't think it's an abstract issue which is open to the usual norms of debate.
Just to be clear, the book is primarily NOT about racial preferences, but about how our system of racial classification came to be, how it's enforced, and how it's spread into things like biomedical research. But of course, you can't write a whole book about racial classification in the US without touching on the area in which it has the most direct effect, which is affirmative action.
Certainly, and I actually read your book.
But taking apart the way these policies are actually administered could seem to them like an attack on the policies themselves.
For those who consider those policies above criticism, this would be a bad thing.
Thanks for reading! My suspicion is that (a) many of the left who support a.a. agree with much of my critique but (b) they are afraid that any criticism of a.a., not matter how reasonable and legitimate, will be used as fodder to abolish it entirely, especially given that it is constantly in legal jeopardy and also politically unpopular. So they feel the need to defend the status quo, even when they might agree privately that it's indefensible. (To me, this sort of calculation should be the province of political activists, not academics).
I also suspect that even for "fair-minded" editors, they see a book about race by a conservative and decide it is not worth the sh!tstorm that they figure is apt to rain down on them when the Twitter mob gets going. After all, they have plenty of safe books to publish about the queer theory of bronze smelting ca. 1445 BCE.
It makes me think of Dr. Talc from Confederacy of Dunces.
-Zorro
Yes. I wasn't alluding to editors above, but for editors, the potential upside is a good sales for one book. The potential downside is as you describe it. The book doesn't have to be truly controversial in any way beyond not being committed to the ideological construct known as "antiracism" to potentialy raise hackles. Easy call unless you are really committed to your press's purported mission.
Plus (and I do not know the answer to this), do University Press editors care about sales the way conventional commercial publishers like Simon & Schuster do? I had been under the impression that UPs are after prestige (however that may be measured), and sales are a secondary consideration.
I don't think they mind large sales, based on what I've heard from those in the know. They're just not always chasing after big sales, and may not even know how to do the chasing.
And the unnecessarily boring writing style doesn't help.
Yes, you suspect all sorts of stuff.
But in reality this is a matter of intuition about public taste. And there, who knows? We don’t demand Hollywood produce every legit pitch for a script.
No, it's not a matter of public taste. His publication numbers say that, if it were a matter of public taste, they'd have jumped at his latest work.
You don't censor works because they're doomed to be obscure and unpopular, those works don't NEED censorship. You censor the works that would otherwise be popular.
Past performance on other books doesn't mean you get a free pass, Brett. You know this, but you seem to have forgotten it in order to push your narrative.
There is no proof anyone is censoring anything. But you got your persecution complex to feed.
You wouldn't acknowledge proof when it bit you on the butt when it is ideologically convenient for you to ignore it. As you've demonstrated all over this page.
All that anti-Trump lip service got you nowhere.
How do you know it didn't help, they just declined publishing his book, they didn't put out an academic fatwa on him like they did Ilya Shapiro.
People who didn’t say anything didn’t get the Ilya Shapiro punishment either. But Bernstein went out of his way to come out against Trump, offering the same sorts of shallow complaints as Democrats (when Dems are not frothing at the mouth).
And it got him exactly nowhere with the leftists in the academic press (whom he probably, thought of as colleagues).
Were lessons learned, or will he keep doing the same thing, hoping to get eaten last?
It's weird how the same people who show that they are awful, unprincipled people — Trump supporters — can't understand that other people do have principles, and that we detest Trump not because we think it will win us plaudits with the left, but because Trump is a sociopath with no redeeming qualities.
Oh, wait, that's not weird at all.
So you support DeSantis then?
Or will you be making up shallow, fanciful, personality-based objections to DeSantis too?
And when do these so-called principled people actually get over themselves and their self-focused musings and start defending America?
Funny how much of your litmus test about conservativism, ostensibly an ideology, is about whether you support a small number of individuals.
Your take on what being conservative means seems more empty of ideology and full of tribalism than anything else.
No one said anything about "conservatism". You may want to actually pay attention to the comments instead of what the voices in your head say.
And I’m contending that the people who object to one individual for shallow, personality-based "reasons" will object to anyone/everyone based on the same reasons. It’s middle-school mean girls social popularity policing. It’s amazingly shallow.
If these guys want to be better than middle-school mean girls, they might want to have a substantive decision-making reasoning instead of armchair psychoanalysis based on deceptive partisan news filtering.
But I actually don’t think they want to be better, only look it.
That you think the objection to Trump is about "shallow, personality based reasons" says a lot about you but not about the people who object to Trump.
(I'm old enough to remember when Bill Clinton was president and conservatives argued that character mattered.)
I’m old enough to remember that everyone concluded that character was irrelevant because keeping Clinton in power mattered more than everything else combined.
If everything is completely the same, character is a good tie breaker. Government should be about policy.
You’ve already revealed that anti-Trump loyalty oaths are the only thing you care about. Presumably you’ll still have that same criteria long after Trump dies of old age. That way you get to posture about your stories forever and are never burdened with anything so strenuous as thinking.
You remember everyone concluding character was irrelevant?!
That's fucking nuts, man...
Indeed, Clinton wasn't convicted because character was irrelevant.
If you claim otherwise the nutter here is you.
I do not support DeSantis (though, yes, I would prefer to see him rather than Trump — a rather low bar that can be cleared by everyone this side of Kim Jong Un). My dealbreaker is democracy. I will not support any Republican (or Libertarian) that is not in opposition to Trump. By that I don't mean his 'policies,' such as they are; they can be assessed on a case-by-case basis. I mean his attempts to overthrow the government. Nobody unwilling to say that Trump's conduct was beyond the pale — if not criminal — is fit to be in office. Nobody unwilling to admit that Trump was lying and that he legitimately lost the election is fit to be in office. Nobody in Congress who opposed impeachment (this doesn't apply to DeSantis specifically, obviously) is fit to be in office.
Opposition to Trump is "defending America." He's the single greatest internal threat this country has seen since the Civil War. He is willing to burn the entire country and every institution in it down for his own personal ends.
You like storytelling a lot, apparently. All anyone has to do is stage a drama and they’ve captured you and you’re radicalized forever.
That you don't like the facts don't make them go away.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/08/17/desantis-wont-say-if-2020-was-rigged-but-hes-campaigning-for-republicans-who-do-00052266
He’s not willing to take your loyalty oath. That’s only meaningful to you.
Most loyalty oaths aren't only about affirming true facts.
I saw the MI election apparently stolen in Detroit.
Whether enough of that took place elsewhere, or the other shenanigans, was enough to swing the election I cannot say for sure. But I'm sure not affirming that the 2020 election was properly decided and don't see why DeSantis should either.
The actual content of loyalty oaths is irrelevant. Their purpose is to divide and subjugate. You’re either one of the followers or an enemy, depending on whether you speak the oath or you don’t.
You're not fit to vote but I, unfortunately, cannot prevent you from doing your best to damage this country.
And you can't prevent Trump from winning election when he runs.
Anti Trump?
I mean, I like evidence of things before I believe them.
This is just imputing bias to everyone who didn't want to publish your latest book. 7 different institutions.
Never mind your other books, some with a bit of partisanship to them, got published fine - that's just proof of how fast the problem is growing!
It's a laughably weak case, if you look at it with any but partisan persecution glasses on.
But partisan glasses are amazing! You need no proof at all; every impediment is a confession; every success is proof how undeniably right you are.
I'm sure some of their best friends are conservatives and libertarians.