Beyond All Reason: The Radical Assault on Truth in American Law (Hardcover)

by Daniel A. Farber (Author), Suzanna Sherry (Author) "The past twenty years have been a time of great ferment in the academy..." (more)
Key Phrases: radical multiculturalists, radical multiculturalism, outsider scholarship, Patricia Williams, Asian Americans, Derrick Bell (more...)

Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com Review
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.

Review
Farber and Sherry are not alone in worrying about this. Traditional liberals in law schools all over the country are shaking their heads, wondering what hit them. Whereas 10 years ago one might have had a fruitful discussion with faculty members and students about justice, equality, freedom, responsibility and merit, such Enlightenment concepts are now considered a bit dated--like stale granola. -- The New York Times Book Review, Alex Kozinski

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Hardcover: 208 pages
• Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA; 1 edition (October 30, 1997)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0195107179
• ISBN-13: 978-0195107173
• Product Dimensions: 8.6 x 5.8 x 0.8 inches
• Shipping Weight: 15.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.0 out of 5 stars See all reviews (7 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #1,009,513 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

  Popular in these categories: (What's this?)

  #39 in	Books > Nonfiction > Law > Perspectives on Law > Natural Law
  #39 in	Books > Professional & Technical > Law > Perspectives on Law > Natural Law

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

9 of 10 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Powerful arguments against a disastrous trend., March 21, 1999

By	Timothy P. Scanlon (Hyattsville, MDUSA) - See all my reviews (TOP 500 REVIEWER)    (REAL NAME)

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.

7 of 9 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Clear, carefully argued and sober., February 10, 2001

By	B. Rossen "Equitus" (Netherlands) - See all my reviews

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.

4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Reasonable Doubt, June 9, 2001

By	"lunardeimos" (DeBary, Fl United States) - See all my reviews

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.