In an irony that neither would be likely to appreciate much, Lani Guinier's account of being nominated and then unnominated for the position of head of the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division is reminiscent of Robert Bork's Tempting of America (see Orrin's review). Both quickly came to be perceived more as symbols than human beings and, as such, ended up being subjected to really unfair personal attacks and having their philosophies caricatured. But what is really instructive about the two cases is the differences rather than the similarities.

Robert Bork's nomination split the Congress and the punditry on strictly party lines and it just so happened that the Democrats controlled the Senate at that point in time, so he went down to defeat. However, he did get to have nomination hearings where he was questioned about his views however ineptly by the members of the Senate Judiciary committee. [Personally, I learned more of value about constitutional law by watching the hearings than I did in my law school class.] Despite the fact that his nomination was clearly doomed, President Reagan stood by him and insisted on putting the matter to a vote, allowing Bork to lose honorably and granting him a sense of closure, albeit mixed with disgust, at the end of the ugly process. Bork later wrote his book in order to explain and amplify his views on the constitution and the legal system and, to a lesser degree, to give his perspective on the nomination fight. The result is a vital and readable contribution to our understanding of the degree to which our jurisprudence has become politicized and of the dangers it entails, as well as a resigned, but bemused, look at the Senate by someone who ran afoul of the institution.

Lani Guinier's nomination, on the other hand, split the nation along racial lines, with even traditional white allies abandoning black civil rights organizations to oppose her. Ultimately, even Bill Clinton, her longtime friend, repudiated his own nominee and withdrew her name before she got to the hearings stage. This, understandably, left Guinier frustrated and humiliated, feeling that she had been denied the opportunity to defend her views and her own good name. In the most affecting passages in the book, she describes how she was about to appear on Nightline when Ted Koppel told her that the next day's New York Times and Washington Post announced that the White House had decided to pull her name, a fact of which she was unaware at the time. She also describes having old pal Hillary walk right past her at the White House with a wave and a "Hey kiddo", obviously unwilling to stop and discuss the fiasco and she details her meeting with a dewey eyed President Clinton, who moments after telling her that the meeting was one of the most difficult of his life went before the White House press corps and denounced her as "antidemocratic". Guinier has written another book, Tyranny of the Majority, which I honestly haven't read, but in this book she whines on ad nauseum about how the failure of her nomination was a catastrophe for the cause of civil rights in America. In the strangest maneuver of the book, she introduces herself early on as someone who was forced to write controversial articles in order to win tenure, then laments how those views were twisted by the press and hostile politicians, then returns at the end of the book to a defense of them as her true beliefs. The result is an enormously self-indulgent vanity piece, with insufficient consideration of, and a marked lack of honesty about, the controversial theories that ultimately sank her nomination. The book spreads more noise than light on the issues.

The most serious flaw of the book, narrowly outweighing her egomaniacal catalogue of what appears to be every compliment that she was ever paid in her life, is the disingenuous treatment of the implications of her view of democracy. The essential fact is that Ms Guinier does not believe that the United States Constitution, with it's system of representative democracy, adequately defends the rights of minorities. Therefore, she proposes adoption of schemes like cumulative voting, geared towards allowing the losing minority to win actual representation regardless of their election loss. For instance, if a school board district voted 60% Republican and 40% Democrat, they would send three Republicans and two Democrats to the board. Now you could discuss the merits and drawbacks of these types of Rube Goldberg mechanisms until you were blue in the face, but the primary point here is that they represent a radical departure from our current constitutional regime and are a fundamental attack on representative democracy. There is no reason that we should not consider and debate these types of measures, but intellectual honesty requires that their advocates describe them accurately. Guinier's refusal to do so casts a shadow of deception over the book.

In the final analysis, where Judge Bork's book stands out in particular for the intellectual rigor of his arguments and analysis, Guinier's is merely interesting as a portrait of the shallowness and duplicity of her friends the Clintons.

GRADE: D+

lani guinier's story marks the beginning of the awful, underhanded politics of smear that have only gotten worse in recent years. she is wise and resilient. it's a reminder that we all have to stay engaged to rescue the American process, no matter what the mudslinging.

Professor Guinier has seen beyond the veil which seems to have fallen over the civil rights movement for the past thirty years. Guinier uses the story of her dis-appointment (her phrase) by the Clinton Administration to expose the inner workings of the political system and clarify her views. In so doing, she lays out a strategy that is simple, obvious, and doable. While so many "leaders" have been busy listening to one another, Guinier has been able to hear a still, small, powerful voice. This book is a must read for anyone who cares about democracy.

Guinier's essays that evoked so much controversy when she was offered as a nominee for a key position in the Clinton administration. The introduction is more thought-provoking than the essays are, as the latter tend to get boggled down in legalese and political theory. At least the label of Quota Queen should be rejected by this book which gives an accurate portrait of his views rather than a conservative-media-biased one.

A classic example of how well thought out arguements are all to often misunderstood because of today's desire for the one-liner and the soundbite.

Guiner and Torres write pedantically with little organization or cohesion. Although the anecdotes were interesting, the authors' arguments reek of indolent emotionalism rather than theory and sound policy.

I realize this is a critical review. I try to be fair to all viewpoints, but this vacuous work warrants these harsh words. Gerald Torres was a visiting professor at Harvard, where his indifferent attitude to his own class and examination live on in infamy. He is not proficient at conveying information.

In short, while Torres and Guiner intended to write a mentally stimulating book, this work is instead mind numbing. Spend your money on another book. For alternate reading on race theory, try "Unequal Treatment: A Study in the Neoclassical Theory of Discrimination" by Lundahl and Wadensjo.

Lani Guinier and Gerald Torres say that race-blind solutions and a race-blind society have failed. Whom are they kidding? When did either of them try race-blind solutions? Does Guinier think that she was hired by Harvard Law School because of all the law professors in the country who were not employed at Harvard, Yale, or Stanford, she had the best publication record? The most distinguished record of public service? The best academic background? Give us a break! I have plowed through her previous book, and a finer example of academic mumbo-jumbo (and very poor editing) has never been published.

Gerald Torres teaches at my legal alma mater, which has done its best to persevere in race-based hiring despite losing a 5th Circuit case concerning its admissions system. That school is literally the most race-conscious place I have ever been (and that includes the west side of Chicago and Harlem). When did Torres try race-blind living?

In academia these days, far and away the most important qualification for any post is to be of the favored sex or one of the favored ethnic groups. It outweighs publication, experience, student evaluations, and academic background by a long way -- as I have seen repeatedly from both sides of the interview table. What more does the Quota Queen want?

In short, these people are phonies, and this book is simply another contribution to the propaganda campaign on behalf of disfavoring white men in every aspect of American life -- particularly in academia. This book, therefore, is akin to hauling coals to Newcastle.

This is the best book about race relations in America since Ralph Ellison's Invisible Man.

This book compares women who are "significantly more likely to report eating disorders, sleeping difficulties, crying, and symptoms of depression or anxiety" with the stronger (mentally and academically) male students attending Penn U. The wording of the book is cloaked in the language of research, but the actual focus groups are selected non-randomly (hand-picked?). Those interviewed included females who entered law school with PRE-existing problems and who were more than ready to express grievances with the school. The book strongly suggests that there is an insidious and dangerous gender-discrimination in law schools...due to the law school's refusal to accomodate the female nature. It also leads the unwary to believe that these women are representative of the female gender. The book would have been quite different, I'm sure, if those interviewed had been randomly selected. If you find that reading about staged interviews that portend to expose gross gender-differences (and discriminations)in law school is a wise use of your time and money, then put this one in your cart... b/c that's exactly what you'll get in this book. Otherwise...save your money, or buy a different book.

This book is a dated snapshot of one school and its culture towards female law students. It was hard to find any applicability system-wide.

As a lawyer who graduated from a good law school in the 1980's, I found this book to be excellent. The findings resonnated with my own law school experience, which was alienating at best and miserable at worst. I was finally able to make sense of what happened to me in law school and why I found the work so frustrating. I was taught to be competitive and my nature was more compromising. As my experience and that of so many others who have worked in the court system, a lawyer's best skill is negotiation. The vast majority of cases filed in court today are settled. Those skills could be developed in law school more than the aggressive winner takes all approach. I'm glad I read this book. It is not for casual readers, but I would highly recommend it for any women lawyer or women who is even thinking of going to law school.