What do you think?
Rate this book
We Won't Go Back: Making the Case for Affirmative Action
Reviews the original intent of affirmative action policies and argues for their critical role in the health of American society, emphasizing the need for an expanded and more humane version of affirmative action.
Hardcover
First published February 26, 1997
144 people want to read
About the author
Mari J. Matsuda
7 books18 followersMari J. Matsuda is an American lawyer, activist, and law professor at the William S. Richardson School of Law at the University of Hawaii. She was the first tenured female Asian American law professor in the United States, at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Law in 1998 and one of the leading voices in critical race theory since its inception.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
May 20, 2024
TWO LAW PROFESSORS LOOK APPROVINGLY AT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS
Charles R. Lawrence III is Professor of Law Emeritus at Georgetown University. Mari J. Matsuda is law professor at the University of Hawaii, and formerly taught law at the UCLA School of Law and Georgetown University.
They wrote in the Preface to this 1997 book, “We write not simply as individuals, but as individuals who are connected to multiple communities… Our parents taught us that this struggle is not just about individual advancement, nor only about the advancement of one’s racial group. The struggle for human dignity is for all human beings. Those who would live off the toil of others, those who would sign restrictive covenants, those who would bomb a church, are also part of the human family …[Our parents] taught us that the struggle to make a place at the table for ourselves was also a struggle to free the souls of those who would exclude us. This is the lesson we hope to bring to our understanding of affirmative action.” (Pg. xv) They continue, “In a world divided by race and gender, a Black man and an Asian woman sometimes see things differently. We strive to retain this separate vision as a strength of analysis… Our defense of affirmative action is a defense of bringing human beings together from a multiplicity of experience, bringing them together as Who They Are, with their genealogies intact… This is the dream of peace that runs through the world’s major religious traditions and through our great secular religions of constitutionalism. It is a dream reflected in the practice of affirmative action.” (Pg. xx)
They report, “Asian American students suffered a significant setback in the fall of 2975 at the University of California at Berkeley, where the faculty at the law school voted to eliminate Japanese and Chinese Americans from the minority admissions program, arguing that a sufficient number of Asian Americans were being admitted through the regular admissions process. This move presaged a national trend toward excluding Asian Americans from affirmative action programs.” (Pg. 21)
They observe, “Those of us who are affirmative action’s strongest supporters know that, in their current incarnations, many affirmative action programs have serious weaknesses… we are … concerned when the programs fail to address directly the problems of the most needy. When we hear the complaint that affirmative action ‘only helps the privileged’ from the very people who are demolishing programs for the poor, we hear hypocrisy. The limitations this complaint identifies are not inherent in affirmative action. Compromises to power during the turbulent shaping of affirmative action have made it a very different animal from that envisioned by the original proponents.” (Pg. 26)
They explain, “in the Davis case… The Court failed to acknowledge that most of the Black applicants who had lower scores than their white counterparts had attended public schools in the District of Columbia, schools that a federal court had already found denied Black children an equal chance to learn the very skills the civil service test was measuring… the test had in effect perpetuated an educational advantage gained by whites as a result of recent racism.” (Pg. 78)
They note, “Historically, the demand for affirmative action came from communities with unmet needs. Ghettos, left without basic services because of white flight, needed doctors, lawyers, merchants, and teachers who were unafraid to serve there…. Taxpayers in poor neighborhoods were tired of watching construction contracts allocated to incompetent insider cronies and racist contractors who hired only white men… They wanted a share of the jobs and a say over how the projects were carried out so that their concerns, from environmental pollution to cultural sensitivity, were respected.” (Pg. 101-102)
They state, “It is easy to empathize with [Stephen] Carter’s longing for recognition of his talents and achievements. Every person of color who has broken the barriers of racial exclusion has felt, if not spoken, his sentiments: I want to be the best, not the best Black. How else can I disprove the myth of my inferiority and that of my people? But when whites and others define affirmative action as a gift or compensation to those who are otherwise unqualified, they reinforce notions of the inferiority of minorities.” (Pg. 129-130)
They say, “many first-generation college graduates are the products of affirmative action. It is not surprising that students of color at elite universities look around and see privilege among their peers. Admittedly, the limited form of affirmative action that some universities have undertaken picks out those students of color who are most like the economically advantaged white students who predominate on campus. Nonetheless, affirmative action programs at the universities have given sons and daughters of migrant farm workers, garment industry toilers, maids, busboys, and janitors the chance to gain an education.” (Pg. 181)
They acknowledge, “At one level, it is true that those who can take advantage of affirmative action at the college and graduate school level are children of privilege. Something in their lives, often intelligent and aggressive parent advocates who value education, has made it possible for them to attain the level of preparation necessary to enter the university… programs extending academic opportunities to students who are not as well prepared are innovations that should exist alongside traditional affirmative action programs that consider cand gender in deciding among many well-qualified applicants.” (Pg. 183)
They point out, “Of course, the first for affirmative action of the 1960s and beyond was not a fight merely for acknowledgement of past wrong; it was a passionate struggle to improve present conditions, to gain jobs, education, and political participation today.” (Pg. 243)
They conclude, “Affirmative action really is for everyone. We don’t mean this in a shallow way---although it is, indeed, more fun to go multicultural. The definition of what it is to be human is at stake. We don’t want our children to come to the end of her lives and say, “I lived only for myself.’ We don’t want our students to know that cold and lonely credo as the only basis for public policy.” (Pg. 279)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Affirmative Action programs.
Charles R. Lawrence III is Professor of Law Emeritus at Georgetown University. Mari J. Matsuda is law professor at the University of Hawaii, and formerly taught law at the UCLA School of Law and Georgetown University.
They wrote in the Preface to this 1997 book, “We write not simply as individuals, but as individuals who are connected to multiple communities… Our parents taught us that this struggle is not just about individual advancement, nor only about the advancement of one’s racial group. The struggle for human dignity is for all human beings. Those who would live off the toil of others, those who would sign restrictive covenants, those who would bomb a church, are also part of the human family …[Our parents] taught us that the struggle to make a place at the table for ourselves was also a struggle to free the souls of those who would exclude us. This is the lesson we hope to bring to our understanding of affirmative action.” (Pg. xv) They continue, “In a world divided by race and gender, a Black man and an Asian woman sometimes see things differently. We strive to retain this separate vision as a strength of analysis… Our defense of affirmative action is a defense of bringing human beings together from a multiplicity of experience, bringing them together as Who They Are, with their genealogies intact… This is the dream of peace that runs through the world’s major religious traditions and through our great secular religions of constitutionalism. It is a dream reflected in the practice of affirmative action.” (Pg. xx)
They report, “Asian American students suffered a significant setback in the fall of 2975 at the University of California at Berkeley, where the faculty at the law school voted to eliminate Japanese and Chinese Americans from the minority admissions program, arguing that a sufficient number of Asian Americans were being admitted through the regular admissions process. This move presaged a national trend toward excluding Asian Americans from affirmative action programs.” (Pg. 21)
They observe, “Those of us who are affirmative action’s strongest supporters know that, in their current incarnations, many affirmative action programs have serious weaknesses… we are … concerned when the programs fail to address directly the problems of the most needy. When we hear the complaint that affirmative action ‘only helps the privileged’ from the very people who are demolishing programs for the poor, we hear hypocrisy. The limitations this complaint identifies are not inherent in affirmative action. Compromises to power during the turbulent shaping of affirmative action have made it a very different animal from that envisioned by the original proponents.” (Pg. 26)
They explain, “in the Davis case… The Court failed to acknowledge that most of the Black applicants who had lower scores than their white counterparts had attended public schools in the District of Columbia, schools that a federal court had already found denied Black children an equal chance to learn the very skills the civil service test was measuring… the test had in effect perpetuated an educational advantage gained by whites as a result of recent racism.” (Pg. 78)
They note, “Historically, the demand for affirmative action came from communities with unmet needs. Ghettos, left without basic services because of white flight, needed doctors, lawyers, merchants, and teachers who were unafraid to serve there…. Taxpayers in poor neighborhoods were tired of watching construction contracts allocated to incompetent insider cronies and racist contractors who hired only white men… They wanted a share of the jobs and a say over how the projects were carried out so that their concerns, from environmental pollution to cultural sensitivity, were respected.” (Pg. 101-102)
They state, “It is easy to empathize with [Stephen] Carter’s longing for recognition of his talents and achievements. Every person of color who has broken the barriers of racial exclusion has felt, if not spoken, his sentiments: I want to be the best, not the best Black. How else can I disprove the myth of my inferiority and that of my people? But when whites and others define affirmative action as a gift or compensation to those who are otherwise unqualified, they reinforce notions of the inferiority of minorities.” (Pg. 129-130)
They say, “many first-generation college graduates are the products of affirmative action. It is not surprising that students of color at elite universities look around and see privilege among their peers. Admittedly, the limited form of affirmative action that some universities have undertaken picks out those students of color who are most like the economically advantaged white students who predominate on campus. Nonetheless, affirmative action programs at the universities have given sons and daughters of migrant farm workers, garment industry toilers, maids, busboys, and janitors the chance to gain an education.” (Pg. 181)
They acknowledge, “At one level, it is true that those who can take advantage of affirmative action at the college and graduate school level are children of privilege. Something in their lives, often intelligent and aggressive parent advocates who value education, has made it possible for them to attain the level of preparation necessary to enter the university… programs extending academic opportunities to students who are not as well prepared are innovations that should exist alongside traditional affirmative action programs that consider cand gender in deciding among many well-qualified applicants.” (Pg. 183)
They point out, “Of course, the first for affirmative action of the 1960s and beyond was not a fight merely for acknowledgement of past wrong; it was a passionate struggle to improve present conditions, to gain jobs, education, and political participation today.” (Pg. 243)
They conclude, “Affirmative action really is for everyone. We don’t mean this in a shallow way---although it is, indeed, more fun to go multicultural. The definition of what it is to be human is at stake. We don’t want our children to come to the end of her lives and say, “I lived only for myself.’ We don’t want our students to know that cold and lonely credo as the only basis for public policy.” (Pg. 279)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Affirmative Action programs.
June 10, 2008
probably the most liberal book I've read.
it has lots of great ideas arguing for affirmative action but ultimately goes too far. this country will never be as socialist (and perfect) as they advocate for, but there is definitely a bit of anchoring farther left than necessary. overall a great and inspiring book
it has lots of great ideas arguing for affirmative action but ultimately goes too far. this country will never be as socialist (and perfect) as they advocate for, but there is definitely a bit of anchoring farther left than necessary. overall a great and inspiring book
October 22, 2014
Some aspects grabbed my attention. Others, not so much. It may have to do with the fact that I'm familiar with Charles Lawrence's writings from law reviews, so the central arguments weren't exactly new to me.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews