Kindle
$21.99
Available instantly
Buy new:
-41% $17.21
FREE delivery Sunday, July 21 on orders shipped by Amazon over $35
Ships from: Amazon.com
Sold by: Amazon.com
$17.21 with 41 percent savings
List Price: $28.99

The List Price is the suggested retail price of a new product as provided by a manufacturer, supplier, or seller. Except for books, Amazon will display a List Price if the product was purchased by customers on Amazon or offered by other retailers at or above the List Price in at least the past 90 days. List prices may not necessarily reflect the product's prevailing market price.
Learn more
Get Fast, Free Shipping with Amazon Prime FREE Returns
FREE delivery Sunday, July 21 on orders shipped by Amazon over $35
Or fastest delivery Friday, July 19. Order within 7 hrs 31 mins
Only 5 left in stock - order soon.
$$17.21 () Includes selected options. Includes initial monthly payment and selected options. Details
Price
Subtotal
$$17.21
Subtotal
Initial payment breakdown
Shipping cost, delivery date, and order total (including tax) shown at checkout.
Ships from
Amazon.com
Ships from
Amazon.com
Sold by
Amazon.com
Sold by
Amazon.com
Returns
Eligible for Return, Refund or Replacement within 30 days of receipt
Eligible for Return, Refund or Replacement within 30 days of receipt
This item can be returned in its original condition for a full refund or replacement within 30 days of receipt.
Returns
Eligible for Return, Refund or Replacement within 30 days of receipt
This item can be returned in its original condition for a full refund or replacement within 30 days of receipt.
Payment
Secure transaction
Your transaction is secure
We work hard to protect your security and privacy. Our payment security system encrypts your information during transmission. We don’t share your credit card details with third-party sellers, and we don’t sell your information to others. Learn more
Payment
Secure transaction
We work hard to protect your security and privacy. Our payment security system encrypts your information during transmission. We don’t share your credit card details with third-party sellers, and we don’t sell your information to others. Learn more
$9.98
Get Fast, Free Shipping with Amazon Prime FREE Returns
FREE delivery Wednesday, July 24 on orders shipped by Amazon over $35
Or fastest delivery Thursday, July 18. Order within 5 hrs 46 mins
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
$$17.21 () Includes selected options. Includes initial monthly payment and selected options. Details
Price
Subtotal
$$17.21
Subtotal
Initial payment breakdown
Shipping cost, delivery date, and order total (including tax) shown at checkout.
Access codes and supplements are not guaranteed with used items.
Kindle app logo image

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

QR code to download the Kindle App

Follow the author

Something went wrong. Please try your request again later.

A Dubious Expediency: How Race Preferences Damage Higher Education Hardcover – May 25, 2021

4.8 4.8 out of 5 stars 25 ratings

{"desktop_buybox_group_1":[{"displayPrice":"$17.21","priceAmount":17.21,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"17","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"21","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"9LWuYeAEn3wWSPQQTWObDDJZOn38xuKQb8Mnnevfk1j0LJNLQjJ6ZrafzcFtH%2BfrIqCncws9C6DhTfL6ah%2FqiCQ69r5XcldaijQLGM7NyduA3wf76tijDBbpx3Ltgoj48LNvhTdGZwVwwvpvIbOukA%3D%3D","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"NEW","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":0}, {"displayPrice":"$9.98","priceAmount":9.98,"currencySymbol":"$","integerValue":"9","decimalSeparator":".","fractionalValue":"98","symbolPosition":"left","hasSpace":false,"showFractionalPartIfEmpty":true,"offerListingId":"9LWuYeAEn3wWSPQQTWObDDJZOn38xuKQGYxbJhSpiKIYuReAL3NWXtGd1irYhTpmTVOmwM02ha7op9J7nQ71CLrZLMzl%2BTRUE33mxlA6Vks98kwM78E9nZP9DAU1gbNktHN%2BRkobajtYy%2Bcl5V82cxdbhBaTsfTA%2FD2HZ63RGRkNzR14b9Xst7zsvrwZwmKP","locale":"en-US","buyingOptionType":"USED","aapiBuyingOptionIndex":1}]}

Purchase options and add-ons

This book offers eight clear-sighted essays critical of racial “diversity” preferences in American higher education. Unlike more conventional books on the subject, which are essentially apologies for racial reverse discrimination, this volume forthrightly exposes the corrosive effects of identity politics on college and university life.

The fact-filled and hard-hitting chapters are by Heather Mac Donald, Peter N. Kirsanow, Peter W. Wood, Lance Izumi and Rowena Itchon, John Ellis, Carissa Mulder, and the editors Gail Heriot and Maimon Schwarzschild.


The Amazon Book Review
The Amazon Book Review
Book recommendations, author interviews, editors' picks, and more. Read it now.

Editorial Reviews

Review

“The unique advantage of this work in the continuing discussion of race-focused policy and practice is that it helpfully focuses on the experience of affirmative action in a compelling manner. Beyond the moral and philosophical objections to affirmative action, the account of the experience itself powerfully justifies concern for the ills still being done in the pursuit of a vain dream.” ―William B. Allen, former chairman, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

“Good intentions all too often produce bad results. Prime example: racial quotas and preferences in higher education. As nine eminent writers explain in
A Dubious Expediency, these violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 have not only harmed colleges and universities but have hurt most of all the intended beneficiaries.” ―Michael Barone, Washington Examiner

“So much that is written or said about affirmative action is demonstrably false or goes uncontested, allowing the debate about this vital issue to be resolved on the basis of emotions and tired clichés. This anthology will change all that.” ―Ward Connerly, former regent of the University of California

“For half a century, supporters of race preferences have used every trick to force their policies on higher education. They have been sold as ‘diversity’ programs, a ‘revision’ of traditional civil rights theory, and even ‘reparations.’ But as this book compellingly notes, they remain unpopular no matter the label. In 2020, voters in deep-blue California shocked the country by decisively rejecting race preferences. The authors of this book are right: It’s time the rest of the country realized this is an exhausted idea that is causing enormous damage to higher education.” ―John Fund,
National Review

About the Author

Gail Heriot is a professor of law at the University of San Diego and a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. She sits on the board of directors of the American Civil Rights Project, Californians for Equal Rights, the National Association of Scholars, and its state affiliate, the California Association of Scholars. She was co-chair of both the campaign for California’s Proposition 209 in 1996 and the successful campaign to prevent its repeal in 2020. She blogs at Instapundit and the Volokh Conspiracy.

Maimon Schwarzschild is a professor of law at the University of San Diego and an affiliated professor at the University of Haifa. He is a member of the California State Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. He is a member of the editorial board of the
Journal of Law & Philosophy. He is an English barrister and has been a visiting professor at the University of Paris/Sorbonne and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Product details

  • Publisher ‏ : ‎ Encounter Books (May 25, 2021)
  • Language ‏ : ‎ English
  • Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 336 pages
  • ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1641771321
  • ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1641771320
  • Reading age ‏ : ‎ 18 years and up
  • Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 2.31 pounds
  • Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6.25 x 1.25 x 9.25 inches
  • Customer Reviews:
    4.8 4.8 out of 5 stars 25 ratings

About the author

Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
Maimon Schwarzschild
Brief content visible, double tap to read full content.
Full content visible, double tap to read brief content.

Discover more of the author’s books, see similar authors, read author blogs and more

Customer reviews

4.8 out of 5 stars
4.8 out of 5
25 global ratings

Top reviews from the United States

Reviewed in the United States on June 27, 2021
Most people know that affirmative action is a fraud, but we look the other way and pretend that it doesn’t really hurt anyone. These essays document that the victims of affirmative action are not only the non-black, non-Hispanic applicants who are nudged aside, they are the very minorities affirmative action was intended to help. The worst thing is that schools don’t care.
2 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on July 20, 2021
Meritocracy made US the most prosperous country in the world in the past. It is under attack from leftists, and its attack is manifested in higher education. Very well written book, particularly pointing out the dangers our society and nation will face.
3 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on June 20, 2022
A DUBIOUS EXPEDIENCY: HOW RACE PREFERENCES DAMAGE HIGHER EDUCATION
(New York, etc. 2022)
Edited by GAIL HERIOT and MAIMON SCHWARZSCHILD
Review by Hugh Murray

This is a collection of essays on a narrow, but important topic: affirmative action in higher education. There are overlaps as the different authors analyze the policy from different aspects on campus and reactions to it by the general society. A main thrust is the contention that affirmation action results in a mismatch at top-flight universities of academically weaker, minority students with much stronger white ones. This harms the black students. There is a similar concern about Hispanic students. One chapter details the new cultural atmosphere on many campuses, while another describes growing Asian opposition to affirmative action (hereafter, AA). As part of the current Zeitgeist in academia, there is little discussion of the effect of AA's discrimination against white males, who in the new WOKE era are to shut up, listen, (and take whatever the others decide).
John Ellis in the Slippery Slope chapter relates how he, a university dean at the dawning of AA, was encouraged to accept Federal funds for a program of outreach to minority students. He thought it a superb idea as the federal money allocated to this program would allow the university to spend more money on its traditional programs. However, soon it was revealed that many of the minority students recruited under the program lacked basic skills and were having difficulties and doing poorly in classes. There was now mounting pressure not to disappoint, to hire tutors, and to speak with professors who might be more sympathetic (and lower their standards). The Federal Government was paying, but changing the university's quality of education, and forcing more hiring of diversity staff, as well as more recruitment of lesser qualified minorities. The newer minority staff became a lobby inside the university administration to press for ever more recruitment, retention, hiring, and the concomitant lowering of standards further. After some years of this, Ellis came to the conclusion that not only did he oppose AA, but he now also opposed any special outreach to recruit minorities, for “the one removes any defense against the other.”(18) Once you lower academic standards for one, inevitably you must lower them to continue the spiral downward process.
In the next chapter Gail Heriot reveals the source of the book's title. By the 1970s, AA was established as policy at many colleges, and the U. of California Davis had devised its plan on admissions: 84 openings were admitted according to the best qualifications, while 16 were set aside for “disadvantaged” applicants. In university liberal NewSpeak, disadvantaged translates as racial minority. A white applicant, Allan Bakke was rejected, though he came very close to making the merit based 84. Nevertheless, he believed he had performed better than the minority hopefuls, and sued the university to gain admittance alleging he was the victim or racial discrimination. Bakke was the son of a postman and a school teacher. He had served in Vietnam as a medic, and had volunteered at local emergency rooms at night. He wanted to become a doctor. Bakke sued the university, won in the lower courts, and UC Davis appealed to the California Supreme Court. In 1976 the California high court decided 6-1 and a liberal wrote the decision, Judge Stanley Mosk. Many assumed that the university had won the case. However, Mosk ruled in favor of Bakke and against the university, because to rule in favor of AA “would represent a retreat in the struggle to assure that each man and woman shall be judged based on individual merit alone.” It would “sacrifice principle for the sake of a dubious expediency”(20) By ruling against AA for minorities Judge Mosk became the subject of denunciations, protestors screaming outside his office window in the court, and mobs shouting him down when he spoke on a campus.
However, the case did not end there. UC Davis appealed to the US Supreme Court, and in 1978 that court ruled on the case too. The Supreme Court ruled in a very split, complex decision – 4 Justices affirmed the lower courts and Bakke's right to be enrolled, and rejected the racial discrimination inherent in AA. Four others quite disagreed and upheld the university's racial favoritism for blacks and minorities that permitted discrimination against the white applicant. One Justice, Louis Powell, Jr. found the Ucal Davis AA policy too inflexible, and he therefore found it unConstitutional. So with the 4 conservative justices on board with this part of his decision, Powell had a majority, and consequently Bakke must be admitted. However, if the university could propose a more flexible manner to give a better chance to minorities, that would be Constitutional. Justice Powell opined that with a flexible admissions approach, AA would be legal because it bestows the advantages of “diversity,” on both black and white students. They all gain from learning in a diverse atmosphere, and to achieve this goal through AA, everyone gains. On this part of his decision, Powell lost the votes of the 4 conservatives, but gained the 4 liberal justices, so his entire decision was affirmed 5-4, with different majorities for different parts of his decision. Therefore, it is permissible to discriminate against some (who might have better credentials) in order to achieve a diverse student body which will benefit all.
It is noteworthy how this Justice, and others to follow, dislike a simple, obvious and mechanical AA formula for discrimination against whites. Perhaps, if the formula becomes known, it is too easy to see how unfair it is in traditional terms (it is outright racial discrimination.) In 2003, when the Supremes next took up the AA issue, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the majority upholding AA. She too objected to too rigid formulae, and sought nebula evaluations so each group would achieve a “critical mass” on campus. Chief Justice Rehnquist, in dissent, asked why the “critical mass” for blacks was so much larger than that for Native Americans. He observed that the critical mass of students in both cases was quite like a quota for each group (but of course the Civil Rights Act of 1964 had made quotas illegal). “Critical mass,” “holistic” assessments, or Harvard's evaluations of Asian's inferior personality traits, are all performed behind the thick ivy university walls of secrecy but their purpose is to arrive at the proper quotas in admissions using whatever discrimination against whatever race serves their “diversity” goal.
While Heriot rightly discusses the significance of the Bakke case, she nowhere mentions a comment by Justice Harry Blackmun, one of the 4 who outright supported U Cal Davis and its AA policy. However, Blackmun did write: that this decision was a “regrettable but necessary stage of 'transitional inequality'”, hoping it would end “within a decade at the most.”(The Civil Rights Era, Hugh Davis Graham, p.472) Did AA end in 1988? In 2003 Justice O'Connor, who authored the majority decision upholding AA also wrote that she hoped the policy would end within 25 years.
Heriot writes that Powell's decision gave the green light to anti-white discrimination so long as performed in the name of “diversity,” and universities, government agencies, and corporations joined the diversity crusade. What were some of the results? Heriot fails to mention the case spotlighted by the New York Times Magazine (July 2, 1995 by Nicholas Lemann). To deflect growing opposition to AA, Lemann sought to bolster its importance by contrasting the careers of 2 doctors: Allan Bakke, who had originally been denied admission to U Cal Med School, and Patrick Chavis, a black applicant, who though doing less well on objective examinations, and receiving lower grades, was admitted to that university through its special program for the disadvantaged. Lemann reported the young Chavis was indeed disadvantaged: the son of a single mom, he grew up poor. But Chavis pressed forward, even if he did not get as many A's as Bakke. Even after graduation Chavis received a Master's in Public Health from UCLA. He served the poor black community of Compton, and worked with young mothers and those expecting. In the magazine a picture showed him holding a new born he had just delivered. By contrast the white Bakke was an anesthetist working in a white area of the Middle West; a pedestrian practice by a pedestrian physician. So, even without the higher credentials of Bakke, Chavis, through AA admission to Med School, provided a public service to the community that went beyond just being another doctor. The black AA recipient paid back to the community in a way Bakke did not, and probably could not. That is why AA is necessary, for the good of all communities and for the good of the nation. This is why the AA candidate outshines the one chosen on mere merit. That was the point of the article.
Lemann was not alone in making this point. Soon after Tom Hayden, the main founder of SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) who had become an elected politician in California, wrote a similar article in the leftist magazine, The Nation. Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy was informing a Senate Committee about the advantages of AA, as seen in the careers of Bakke and Chavis. In 1996 not only were several Republican candidates for President openly declaring AA unfair, one Gov. Pete Wilson of California, worked with Ward Connerly, a black member of the U Cal Board of Regents, to place the issue before the people. An amendment to the state's constitution to repeal AA in California state universities and agencies wiykd be in the ballot in the November 1996 election. The usual left forces rallied against this ballot initiative, and Chavis's name and service was invoked in the campaign to save AA. As what usually happens when voters can choose, AA was defeated, the amendment for equal rights passed, and the pro-AA academics had to retreat to their faculty lounges to scheme up other ways to discriminate against white males.
Things changed in 1997. A short, powerful description is in Coloring the News: How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism, by William Mc Gowan, (see especially pp. 1-4) In those few pages Mc Gowan tells more of the story of Dr. Patrick Chavis, a black admitted to U Cal Davis through AA the same time as the white Bakke. Mc Gowan adds information beyond the scope of the New York Times article: “On June 19, 1997, the Medical Board of California suspended his [Chavis's] license to practice medicine...unable to perform some of the most basic duties...guilty of gross negligence and incompetence in the cases of three patients – one of whom had died -...” I urge all to read some of the details in the McGowan book of the horrors Dr. Chavis subjected some black women to. The poster boy of AA suddenly became the poster boy against AA. But this addition to the Chavis story seemingly failed to make it to the New York Times, The Nation, or most major media.
In June 2022 Michael Louis, a black man, in notes he left at the St. Francis Hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma, wrote that he was going to kill the doctor who had recently operated on him as well as anyone else who stood in his way. On May 19 Louis had undergone back surgery by Dr. Preston Phillips, and had been complaining since because of the pain. Dr. Phillips, who was also black, was known as the “consummate gentleman,” a graduate of Harvard Medical School with advanced degrees in organic chemistry, pharmacy, and theology. Of course, everyone makes mistakes, even the best. When I undergo eye surgery, I must sign a paper saying that anything can go wrong. Happily, so far, nothing has. One possibility is that patient Mr. Louis was simply a nut. Most people vent criticism by giving a single star on Yelp for poor service, not shooting several bullets. Or is it possible that the esteemed Dr. Phillips was an AA graduate, one who had failed to acquire certain basic techniques in the procedures but was passed on because he was black? Mr. Louis, true to his mission, also killed several others who stood in his way; another doctor, a receptionist, another patient, and then he killed himself.
Strangely, Kirasanow does not remark on one phenomena that others have noticed: the one table in the university cafeteria that might be integrated ls the one where the athletes gather. Perhaps the main department where blacks do not require AA to gain admission, the one where all are on an equal footing, is the one that is most integrated.
Amazingly, somehow in this chapter Kirasanow fails to mention the HBCU's (Historically Black Colleges and Universities). For much of the 20th century, most blacks who received college educations did so at the HBCUs. Even in the mid-1960s Southern U. in Louisiana was the largest black university in the world. Although it was not his first choice (he wanted Harvard), the young W. E. B. Du Bois departed his integrated world of New England in 1885 to attend Fisk U. in Nashville, Tennessee, a newly founded black college. (There were no old ones in the South where before the Civil War, it was a crime to teach a black even to read in many states.) With Northern victory, the American Missionary Society and other abolitionist groups joined with Freedmen in the South to try to establish schools and colleges. Many struggled to stay afloat, especially when Republican rule in the South was challenged by the resurgent Democrats and their Ku Klux paramilitary forces. Some of Du Bois's friends sought to dissuade the 17-year-old from leaving the land of freedom for a college in the land of slavery, but Du Bois, who had an outstanding record at high school among the Yankees, was excited about his new venture.
Fisk, even before Du Bois's arrival, and though a newly established college, had already earned a world-wide reputation! In 1871 the impoverished college sought to raise funds in a new way. The white choir director, smitten by the unusual songs of the former slaves, he cleaned up the grammar, gathered some choir members into an a Capella group, threw in some popular songs of Stephen Foster, and off they went to sing and raise money. Their program was more serious than the popular, contemporary minstrel shows of lighter, comic, but often demeaning performances. The Fisk Jubilee Singers expanded their tours, and sang before Pres. Grant in the White House, and before an international peace group in Boston. Later in the 1870s they performed for, and won applause from Queen Victoria, who then ruled over so much of the globe. Is it possible that by 1880 more people round the world had heard of Fisk than of Harvard?
Not surprisingly, Du Bois excelled academically at Fisk. He soon edited the school newspaper. Du Bois developed his powers as an orator, and he was a popular student. Here he was socializing in a black environment, noting perhaps different pronunciations, but also different customs. In addition to learning in class, he roamed the environs, keeping his eyes and ears open, and he too heard the music that the singers sang round the world. He also heard the raw, ungrammatical lyrics they did not sing, and some of this would provide material for his chapter on music in his classic Souls of Black Folk (1903). Upon graduating from Fisk, Du Bois was admitted to Harvard, where again he excelled academically. But how much more did Du Bois learn by attending the newly founded college, the segregated college, in Nashville? Had Du Bois NOT gone to Fisk, would there have even been the book, Souls of Black Folk? Would Du Bois have even been aware of the black soul had he not attended Fisk in Nashville? With his background at Fisk, perhaps the reader will not be surprised by this quote from wikipedia: ”While taking part in the American Negro Academy in 1897, Du Bois presented a paper in which he rejected Frederick Douglass's plea for black Americans to integrate into white society.”
My question, if many black students wanted a black cultural experience, why attend an historically white, still mainly white university with a ghettoized dorm instead of going to Fisk or one of the many other HBCUs? The reason – money. Many are unaware that the civil rights era of the 1960s and passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ushered in difficult times for many (not all) HBCU's. Many black students who in the past might have enrolled in these colleges, were suddenly offered numerous, handsome scholarships by the wealthier white universities, North and even in the South. Many HBCU's were suddenly starved for students and funds, and many Northern liberals seemed to think – like the friends of Du Bois in 1885 – that these relics of the past in the land of slavery and segregation should disappear. The larger white universities simply siphoned off the students and grants that might otherwise have gone to the traditional black universities. A few, like Xavier U. in New Orleans, did thrive, becoming one of Louisiana's most important dental schools for all races, while also retaining its traditional black, Roman Catholic heritage.
3 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on June 7, 2021
Law professors Gail Heriot and Maimon Schwarzschild have edited A Dubious Expediency: How Race Preferences Damage Higher Education. Its eight essays deliver a crushing blow to the case for racial preferences. Not only do preferences fail to achieve their proclaimed goals of improved education, racial healing, and improved social mobility for allegedly “marginalized” groups, but they do palpable harm. They promote divisiveness, erode academic standards, and hinder many of the students who supposedly benefit from them.

Any fair-minded reader of this book will come away lamenting that America ever left the path of color-blind merit and started down the path of, well, discrimination. Never mind that racial preferences were intended to be “good discrimination” that would remedy the effects of many years of bad discrimination. Good intentions don’t matter. The results have been ruinous.

In the debate over this contentious issue, A Dubious Expediency is truly must reading.
7 people found this helpful
Report
Reviewed in the United States on May 13, 2022
All good