The Nat Hentoff Reader (Paperback)

by Nat Hentoff (Author)

Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly
It becomes clear from this collection of his writings over the past 25 years that Hentoff iconoclast, muckraker and critic par excellence has been remarkably consistent in his beliefs. And these beliefs come down to an absolute insistence that human freedom and the right of individual expression are sacrosanct, and that any challenge to them whether from the left or right is to be resisted. Many of the pieces here thus focus on First Amendment issues from the banning of books and the censoring of student newspapers in high schools, to community attacks on a grade school teacher as being a Satanist for reading her students fairy tales. He also lashes out at college campuses where demands for political correctness and racial sensitivity have led to the banning of controversial speakers and the pillorying of dedicated professors for innocent remarks interpreted as racist. But he also confronts America's continuing struggle with race, with pieces on persistent school segregation, the neglect of black crime victims by the mainstream press, and black anti-Semitism. His most loving pieces, however, are portraits of musicians Lester Young, Dizzy Gillespie, Louis Armstrong, even Merle Haggard. Risk takers all, such artists personify what unbridled voices can create. As the World Trade Center lies in ruins, Hentoff offers an uncannily timely reminder of the care that must be taken in the protection of rights. He also offers comfort. This from Haggard: "When it looks like everything else is breaking up in the country and in the world, and in your own life, I keep thinking that maybe music will be the last thing to go down."

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

From Booklist
For nearly 50 years, Hentoff has been sounding off in print--in magazines such as the Atlantic Monthly, the New Yorker, and Jazz Times; as a columnist for the Village Voice, Editor and Publisher, and Legal Times; and in books on his obsessions: jazz and the U.S. Constitution. In this volume, Hentoff gathers nearly three dozen pieces that demonstrate the range of his interests and the passion of his voice. Part 1, "The Condition of Liberty," addresses constitutional issues, particularly free speech. Part 2, "The Passion of Creation," celebrates artists famous and obscure: Lenny Bruce, Lester Young, Otis Spann, clarinetist George Lewis, Dizzy Gillespie, Merle Haggard, trumpet player Bryan Shaw, cornetist Ruby Braff, and television pioneer Robert Herridge. In Part 3, Hentoff explores "The Persistence of Race," while in Part 4, he takes on "The Beast of Politics." Many readers will alternate between loving Hentoff and hating him. Even those who disagree with him, however, will grant that Hentoff expresses his firmly held opinions powerfully and even eloquently. Mary Carroll
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

See all Editorial Reviews

Product Details

• Paperback: 320 pages
• Publisher: Da Capo Press (October 16, 2001)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0306810840
• ISBN-13: 978-0306810848
• Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.2 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars See all reviews (3 customer reviews)
• Amazon.com Sales Rank: #961,079 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

4 of 4 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars You won't always agree with Nat Hentoff..., May 9, 2002

By	Sean Smith (Freehold, New Jersey, United States) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

...but he will always make you think. He is the finest writer on free speech issues we have today. There is no one else out there who understands the First Amendment as well as he does, and knows how to make it come alive for his readers. His portraits of musicians are insightful, and will make you want to hear their music if you have never heard it before. His work is always thoughtful and thought provoking, and he is never afraid to take a poke at various sacred cows.

Mr. Hentoff neither of the left nor the right. His long association with the Village Voice, which some would use to label him as a leftie, is counterbalanced by his pro-life writings, which some may use to tar him as a reactionary. I think he just calls them as he sees them.

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Always interesting..., June 27, 2002

By	"platinum35" (New York) - See all my reviews

This book is an incredible source for understanding opposing views about controversial issues. With great literacy, Nat introduces points that one would not normally consider valid or plausible, and he does so fluidly and magnificently. I reccommend this reader highly, hence the 5 stars.

2 of 12 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars First Amendment Rights Do Not Trump Everything, June 10, 2002

By	Redmund K. Sum (Los Altos, CA USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME)

It does not come easy for me to take issue with the renowned Nat Hentoff on the subject of First Amendment. But I must after reading several essays in this book.

The First Amendment is not an absolutist rule for all occasions. It is a compact between our government and us as to how the State may not make laws to abridge the freedom of speech, the free exercise of religion, etc.

The First Amendment protects ideas, in the sense that a citizen cannot be prosecuted for advancing an idea, however unpopular. It clearly does not sanction all acts of expressing an idea. The government does not allow a person to express his hate of another by murdering him, for example. So, freedom of expression, important as it is, does not trump everything else. (The hating person can distribute pamphlets or make a speech to denigrate his enemy. And that would be allowed by law.)

Further, the First Amendment's operative domain is the society at large, at the level of legislation and law-enforcement. Within an organization in that society, public or private, is not the place to practice First Amendment rights, unless that organization has adopted similar guidelines for its code of communication. An organization can and must set rules of governance in pursuit of the mission of the organization. The armed forces, for example, are a government, or public, organization. I doubt that a soldier should have the First Amendment rights to openly express his sympathy for the enemy at the time of combat, say by passing out pamphlets to glorify the enemy or to urge fellow soldiers not to fight a battle. Clearly, such expressions are protected by law within the society at large. Similarly, a school, even a public school, exists for the purpose of educating the young, those who are in charge of schools should and must set rules to ensure that the school is safe, effective, and its charge has good discipline. What those rules should be is open to debate, and even subject to administrative challenge. But I don't think that any person who is a member of a school, be he a teacher, or student, or whatever, even a teacher of the Constitution, can exercise his First Amendment rights as if the school were just open society. Anyone who violates a rule within the jurisdiction of an organization to express himself must be prepared to accept the consequence. Sometimes it makes the person a hero, other times it makes him an idiot, or even a criminal.

Finally, any organization that is in a position to allow, or disallow, a particular speech or a speaker in connection with its business must have the right to do that, that right to approve or disapprove is the First Amendment itself! The First Amendment guarantees the right to express; it does not guarantee approval by others. Disapproval within the confines of an organization is not the same as repudiation of the First Amendment exercisable in the society at large. The reputation of an organization is inevitably tied to what ideas that organization approves or disapproves of. The organization must certainly have the right to shape that. Whether it did the right thing or is up to others to judge.

So the glorification of a student who insisted on disregarding the rules of the school on the previewing of a speech, or the teacher who broke rules because of her fervent First Amendment belief, is misplaced. A government can, as seduced by good intention, use law or administrative power to take away the authority of organizations regarding rule making and enforcement. This good is purchased at the high cost of more government coercive power on how people may freely associate (or not.) Looking at the schools, one can see that taking away authority also takes away accountability. We have done too much of that and this is one reason why public school authorities cannot foster a disciplined environment.

The First Amendment is one of the most precious things we have in this country. We owe it to ourselves to understand it clearly and teach it correctly.