Liberty Books

This book is NOT by John T. Scopes, who did not pen his autobiography "Center of the Storm" until after the release of the film version of "Inherit the Wind" rekindled interest in his 1925 trial in Dayton, Tennessee. This volume contains the "complete stenographic record" of the trial, which was published that same year as "The World's Most Famous Court Trial." The book is supplemented by the text of William Jennings Bryan's undelivered antievolution speech, caricatures of the various lawyers, and photographs of the proceedings. This volume should not be confused with the official trial transcript and the only point at which the absolute accuracy of the record is suspect is the end of the celebrated cross-examination of Bryan by Clarence Darrow. Several of the first person accounts of the conclusion of that infamous encounter have lawyers yelling things that are not preserved in this record, but it is not all that farfetched to imagine the bedlam at the moment and the impossibility of maintaining an accurate record. Besides, Judge Raulston ruled the exchange inadmissible when court reconvened.

I did my dissertation on the Scopes Trial and if you are interested in doing anything with the case or its still vibrant issues, this book contains your primary documentation. Do not get caught up with what people SAY about the trial, READ the transcript. Many history books confuse the "Inherit the Wind" version of what happened with the real trial (most importantly, Bryan volunteered the idea the days of Genesis were not literally twenty-four hour periods, he was not cornered into the admit ion). This trial is as fascinating today as it was 75 years ago.

What I love about this book is that you don't need to read it from front to back. Just flip it open and start reading. A collection of over 50 different alarms telling us to wake up and look what's happened to our country. Lets get out of bed and take it back!

This book is the perfect combination of humor and insight. In order to make its points about the harm caused by being in a toxic relationship, it doesn't resort to preaching or psychiatric babble, nor does it make the reader feel inferior or stupid. The perfect book to give to someone you know in a toxic relationship, as well as buying for yourself if you are unsure about the nature of your own relationship. One of the best things about the book is that it points out that being in a toxic relationship hurts others, not just you. For some people, that could provide the motivation to finally get out the relationship. I also liked the section which provides positive motivation for leaving a toxic person--how great life is going to be when you are finally away from him/her.

This is an excellent book for anyone who owns or operates a car. Mr. Freemon's writing style is clear, organized and easy to understand. He concisely explains the components and workings of each automobile system from starting to the steering. He also provides valuable checklists regarding maintenance, an extensive troubleshooting guide, and a glossary of terms. Illustrations supplement the text well. All in all, he provides the novice with a strong working knowledge of car basics and the confidence to deal with and understand automechanics (i.e. speak their language!)

This book deals with the pivotal year - 1776 - in the American Revolution. While the revolution started before and American victory ended at Yorktown in 1781, this is the year in which the fate of the American Revolution hung in the balance. There was still hope in some quarters that the colonists could reconcile with Britain and King George III. But the events of this year, including disastrous losses after a surprise victory at Boston, almost doom the dreams of the colonists. An incredibly harsh winter contributed to the gloomy outlook for the Founding Fathers. The British expected a very short war but were surprised by the tenacity and zeal of the American militias. The best passages described and illuminated the character of George Washington. He publicly held aloft a torch of optimism while personal correspondence and intimate conversations conveyed his despondency and desperation. But he was the right man at the right time for this job. The most telling passage was Washington, up late at night before a battle, writing the code word for the night on slips of paper: "Victory or Death". This dedication gave us America and the world a Beacon for Freedom.

Michael Mandaville, Author - "Stealing Thunder"

It can be said of this book, as it can for most of McCullough's work, that it is a rare example of accurate history blended with well-crafted story telling that is equally appealing to both mainstream history buffs and seasoned professionals. Usually with books (music and movies too for that matter) it is the case that integrity and depth of ideas become diluted proportional to their popularity - something meant for a larger audience looses the specifics and details that are only appealing to a smaller set of people, thus reducing marketability. David McCullough, whether writing about a person, an event, or in this instance, a year's worth of events, consistently breaks this rule. 1776 is a readable book that deserves credit for its ability to enlighten the historical novice while contributing a worthwhile perspective to the first "official" year of American History.

The book itself is a simple narrative that moves proportionally and chronologically through the events of 1776. George Washington is the book's central figure. His relationship with Henry Knox stands out among numerous themes. Most of the emphasis is placed on the Siege of Boston, the Fall of New York, the New Jersey retreat, and the Battle of Trenton. While it takes place in early 1777 the Battle of Princeton is briefly detailed, largely because of its proximity in both time and importance to the Battle of Trenton. McCullough fills the spaces in between with a variety of stories pertaining to notable figures on both sides including Nathanial Greene, Israel "Old Put" Putnam, William and Richard Howe, and General Henry Clinton. One such story, a Thursday afternoon journey to Parliament by George III in October 1775 to discuss the Colonial problem, effectively starts off the book as it reviews the events of 1775, particularly Bunker Hill, and also delves into the daily political and social life of London. Some readers will be surprised to see an American book about the American Revolution cast King George III in a favorable, yet objective light. Absent from this book are the reports of a delusional tyrant. Instead we are given the description of a simple man, whose reported two favorite things included "a leg of mutton and his plain little wife", with a job to do and an empire to preserve.

A few things come to mind upon completion of this book. One is a sense that the real significance of the year 1776 was that of the decisions and sacrifices that were made along with the physical and mental conditions endured by those at every level who did the work. This same sentiment is also noted by the surprisingly brief appearance made by the Declaration of Independence roughly halfway through the book. Its absence does not imply a diminished sense of importance, rather a commitment to the reality that it was only a document that, no matter how eloquent, meant nothing without military success, which was hard to come by for the colonials in 1776.

Most notable of all is a point that McCullough alludes to throughout the book, first early on by the British parliament or through the eyes of loyalists fleeing Boston, then later from the perspective of the English and Hessians troops pushing through New Jersey. The point being the fact that this revolution was started and carried out by people who had some of the best material lives that the 18th century had to offer. The question of why they were doing it and what they were willing to go through is a large part of what makes the American Revolution the fascination that it is. 1776 is a thorough exploration of this important history that should, and probably will, contribute something significant to any reader's understanding of the American Revolution.

NOTE: There are some authors who read their own work on audio format and David McCullough is one of them. This book is available unabridged. Sometimes, particularly with abridgments, listening to a book in audio format gets frowned upon, as if it is considered cheating or at least skimping. This review has been written by someone who has both read and listened to parts of this book. McCullough's narrating skills being what they are, which is to say superb, leave one with the sense that both formats are legitimate and make a strong case for the validity of well produced audio presentations.

1776 Adds perspective to the American Revolution, and provides many new details, but is a bit long for those just wanting basic history.

This may not be the definitive book about the Revolutionary War, but it is a great place to start learning more about American History. It's meant to be a companion book to the biography "John Adams" and it serves its purpose well.

I like history, and I love the way that David McCullough conveys history not as a set of dates, places, and events, but as stories. He brings each historical figure to life and has a unique way of teaching history that I think most readers will enjoy.

Do yourself a favor and pick up "John Adams" too and read them both.

This is a heckuva well researched book. In terms of content, it can't be beat. The writing tends to be a bit uneven at times, with sentences that seem to lack flow and rhythm, but McCullough is first and foremost a historian and not a stylist.

Overall, 1776 deserves high praise.

Non-Designer's Design Book is great for someone like me - I knew nothing about design and have browsed the web, but all the information on design is disguised and not really made clear or practical. This book is the opposite - practical advice, no chit-chat, straight to the point and clear writing.

My designs are much better, and the tips on typography were the cherry on top of the icing. Get this book and let your designs grow spectacular.

I was very satisfied with my recent purchase for this text book that I needed for my college class. It was delivered on time, and in great condition.

This book is an easy read, it is very entertaining, and will improve your print designs. It is great for teaching you to refine your page layouts. I loved the writing style too.

Fun, practical, readable and packed with examples are just a few of the words that came to mind as I was reading "The Non-Designer's Design Book" by Robin Williams. She has done it again and produced an updated version of a classic that is thoroughly enjoyable to read. I feel the book was written specifically for me - someone who is looking to increase their Design skills, develops presentations, white papers and other documents, and which them to have a 'professional' look and feel, then this book is for you. Robin discusses the four basic principles of Contrast, Repetition, Alignment and Proximity. If you don't apply these principles, then you are very likely to have a crap presentation, newsletter or document. She also covers the use of color and how the use of typeface can influence your readers perception of you and the document you developed.

As an added bonus, Robin spread included several exercises throughout the book. For me this is a huge benefit - it gives me a chance to try and apply the skills she described. Any book that helps ME improve, is worth the price on the cover, and this book is worth every penny.

All-in-all, I highly recommend this book and found the examples very helpful. Run, don't walk to the bookstore to get your copy.

The Non-Designers Design Book is well thought-out and organized. I come from a programming background and my ability to design visuals is limited, so whenever I find a book that can shed light on how designers think and put it in terms that a programmer can understand I am all for it. If you are a designer I think this book would be too basic for your liking, but us non-designers it is as simple as it gets. Do not get the wrong idea the information may be presented in a simple organized way, but the information is very valuable. I would have liked more examples for the web, but the concepts can easily be translated to the web. It was a pleasure to read and I recomend it for any non-designer. I give it four out of five stars.

Another book that Dr. L had us read. During the 2008 presidential debate I see one party is trying to buy votes even though the failures of socialism have been proven time and time again throughout history. This is the singular short work on the failures of socialism.

Friedrich Hayek's The Road to Serfdom was written at a time when the Labour Party of Britain was openly socialist. Although modern social democrats renounce the 's' word, socialism is indeed the root of their thinking, and in this exposition, his magnus opus, Hayek unabashedly sends socialism to the gutter where it belongs. Hayek's thesis, that socialism and totalitarianism are two birds of the same feather, has stood the test of time, and it continues to show up today in the cases of Venezuela or Bolivia. Hayek was arguably responsible for Labour's (and the Democrats') turn to the right, set in stone by former PM Tony Blair (and former President Clinton). This book is, however, still very relevant, exemplified by the Democrats' plan to invade the health care sector, the countless bureaucracies located in Washington, and President Bush's reckless invasion of privacy (which is related to Hayek's arguments about war time and peace time). Although Hayek often comes off as soft on a number of issues, he could not be nearly as dedicated as Milton Friedman to absolute freedom because the intelligentsia was on the far-left in the 40's.

For classical liberals, modern leftists, and conservatives alike, The Road to Serfdom is extraordinarily eye-opening.

The only, effective way to reject socialism is by attacking it's fundamental philosophical ideas. That collectivism is good and the individual must be sacrificed for the "good of the people". Attacking a philosophy such as communism or socialism, because it is not "practical" is a contradiction and undercuts any argument against such a corrupt philosophy. These ideas are not good in theory but bad in practice. They are evil in theory and therefore evil in practice.

I would like to also recommend Ayn Rand's, "The Virtue of Selfishness". This is THE work to understand Man's Individual Rights based on His Rational Nature. It is from these fundamental Truths that the ONLY proper function of a legitimate government is derived - The protection of Individual Rights.

Considering it my duty as an economics major, I took it upon myself to read this book, with little expectations as to its brilliance, and was completely swept away. Not only is Hayek extremely eloquent in articulating the case for free trade, he supports his arguments with facts (e.g. what was then going on in Nazi Germany) and with theory (e.g. why without even the historical evidence that we do have we must conclude that a centralized system cannot equally favor everyone).

Since it is my tendency to look at the 1 star reviews before making a 5 star one, I recognize that some people don't like Hayek because he doesn't recognize the great things about socialized medicine (like how a guy in Canada signed up for a CAT scan under his dog's name because animals are not covered under their highly efficient centralized health care...true story by the way) or the kind thoughts of socialist thinkers (please don't make me choose my selection of Marx quotes). But what Hayek does is present a prima facie case against socialism; before anyone can advocate socialism, they MUST address Hayek's arguments.

This is why I think before any socialist and libertarian face each other in a squabble, both must have read The Road to Serfdom so that they can hit on the applicable issues instead of babbling on about poverty statistics. Are you a socialist and disagree with Hayek? Fine, but read the book so that you know where your opponents stand. I really think that socialists think lovers of capitalism are greedy and have no ethics. But if you read our spokesman Hayek, you'll see why we think that the free market is actually BETTER for society.

Let's change the scope of the argument. Socialists should stop arguing about how some people are poor...yes, some people are poor...and demonstrate how a centralized system can make people BETTER than they would be under the free market system. How planning the systems of production would be more efficient and prosperous than under the system of competition. How giving all our freedoms to one entity would guarantee them for all. If you can effectively address these issues and the many more that Hayek brings up, we will soon see a blessed change in the current headache of debates on socialism.

Friedrich August von Hayek was an Austrian-British economist and political philosopher known for his defense of classical liberalism and free-market capitalism against socialist and collectivist thought in the mid-20th century. Since 1920s, he worked in Austria. Unwilling to return to Austria after its annexation to Nazi Germany, Hayek became a British citizen in 1938, a status he held for the remainder of his life. It was during this time that "The Road to Serfdom" originated, originally published by Routledge Press in March 1944 in the UK and then by the University of Chicago in September 1944.

Hayek's central thesis of this book is that all forms of collectivism lead logically and inevitably to tyranny, and he used the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as examples of countries which had gone down "the road to serfdom" and reached tyranny.

The book has many worthy observations. For example, all people are different by their mental development (which is also influenced by family environment and education, not counting the physical differences of the brain and endocrine system) and thus the classes of the society are needed at least to give more developed people to fully put into action their potential. Liquidation of social classes will also liquidate the abilities of more developed individuals. The same is on the international level. Consider international planning. Whichever honest and democratically open panning system will be adopted, it will be opposed by less developed and poorer nations, because they will see it as ignorance or oppression of their interests. This is obvious - the needs and goals of poor or underdeveloped countries cannot match the goals of rich or developed countries; as the interests of more educated people cannot match the interests of less educated ones.

Many people came to a conclusion that the wealth, in some extent, depends on a level of education. The problem is that not all the people in equal extend incline to the education, to their self-improvement. This is because of the differences of their needs, habits, abilities, capabilities, and so on. Leo Tolstoy in his novel "Resurrection" arose a question of how to improve the level of education: from inside of each individual or from outside? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Should first the level of education in the society be risen which yields a revolution (dialectic transition of quantity into quality) or the revolution should make the environment to foster the education. Hayek doesn't explicitly raise this issue, but brings parallel between delegation of decision making in managing an enterprise and managing the state. Hayek thought that if a company boss makes all decision making solely by himself and doesn't give the work (of decision making) back to the people (see Ronald Heifetz's publications), it is similar to the states with totalitarian government. Such a dictatorship, enterprise-wide or country-wide, can be used in particular circumstances, but should not be used in all cases as the absolutely correct way of management, according to Hayek.

Arguably Friedman's magnus opus, Free to Choose is a book that will radically change the reader's way of thinking. Admittedly, before reading this book I would have been proud to vilify the free market. Like so many others, I fell victim to the demagogues. Free to Choose revolutionized my ideas about the role of government, and how intervention is inherently inefficient. Frieman's ideas are undoubtedly controversial, but Friedman himself was no polemicist. He would look down upon today's radio scum, like Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity. In fact, Friedman would look down upon most modern conservatives. He proudly acknowledged that he was in fact liberal (in the term's classical usage).

Free to Choose brilliantly reveals how over-regulation, astronomically high spending, and an ever-growing bureaucracy have impeded freedom. In the chapter "Created Equal", Friedman summarizes his entire set of ideas in a few words. He says that today many are pursuing "equality of outcome" rather than what the Founding Fathers pursued - "equality of opportunity."

A more essential guide for those of conservative and libertarian leanings I can't think of.

Friedman, in his traditionally accessible, though brilliant, way elucidates economics, politics, and freedom in a timeless classic.

Would buy again and again.

Friedman was a genius. He was also the most articulate and fearless advovate for freedom. It seems that most are willing to give a little here and there for their pet projects. He was not. This is the best argument for the economic power that comes from freedom as well as the advantages for the individual. Over the long hall it is also the only way to prevent the loss of all freedoms. Read this book and it will positively change your life.

Dr. Friedman is plainly an educated and articulate man and his arguments have a seductive veneer of logic to them. The tragedy is that his interpretations are extremely selective: he focuses exclusively on what he perceives to be the strengths of the free market, while completely disregarding its costs. In this respect, he shares the mentality of the fundamentalist. Anything that ever goes well, he attributes to the free market; anything that ever goes wrong, he dismisses as either an aberation, a reflection of inadequate adherence to his core belief system. He has thus created a logical closed loop, which admits no possibility of his starting assumptions being flawed.

Which is highly unfortunate, as he makes a great many assumptions, such as costless mobility of labor, perfect information, and the eventual trickle down of wealth, which are empirically unsound. If a worker loses his or her job, Dr. Friedman assumes that, somehow, that person will be able to find a bigger and better job elsewhere. How? Where? How is that person going to find the wherewithal to pay for the additional training and/or education needed for that real or imaginary bigger and better job? How will s/he pay for rent, food, transportation, health insurance, childcare, etc., while looking for this bigger and better job? Such trifles are plainly not Dr. Friedman's problem; nevertheless, they do pose a whopper of a problem if you're the person who's lost your job.

Likewise, Dr. Friedman simply takes it for granted that companies will behave honorably, will have access to perfect information, and consumers will never be misled or swindled, but will unfailingly shape the market based upon sound decisions. Wow. Must be a nice planet Dr. Friedman lives on. On this planet, companies make rash and/or unethical decisions on a daily basis which are based upon poor information and/or immediate short term gains, for which the general public bears the cost.

Because Dr. Friedman ignores such inconvenient realities, he views the world through rose-colored lenses and is blind to the dismal performance of his ideas whenever they have been implemented as policies. In every instance around the globe, the inevitable result of Friedman's radical ideology has been a tiny handful of predatory capitalists becoming richer than kings while the rest of the country sinks into abject poverty. Dr. Friedman's ideas, in every instance where they have been applied, from Chile to Argentina to Russia to Poland to South Africa to SE Asia - the list goes on - have unfailingly produced huge surges in unemployment and poverty, wholesale selloffs of the country's natural resources and other assets, and, of course, the adoption of repressive measures by governent to force the unpopular policies upon the unwilling populations. How ironic that Dr. Friedman describes himself as an advocate of free choice, when he has personally advised governments around the world to coerce their citizens into accepting his disasterous economic "reform" programs. Not surprisingly, Dr. Friedman doesn't wish to discuss the victims of his ideas, or, insofar as he recognizes them at all, he condescendingly dismisses them as the tragic cost of "progress." Progress for whom? Again, Dr. Friedman doesn't concern himself with such details.

The central flaw in Dr. Friedman's ideology is that he takes no account of wealth distribution. If an economy increases in efficiency, Dr. Friedman claims vindication. But if the benefits of any such increase go exclusively to a tiny minority while the vast majority of the population experiences a sharp reducation in quality of life, how has any overall increase in efficiency improved matters? Dr. Friedman seems to assume that the billionaires his policies create will reinvest their wealth into their local economies. Yet, empirically, we find once again that such is not the case. Billionaires invest their wealth where they can gain the greatest return on their investment. Why then would they want to invest in their own countries? The people who live there, thanks to them and Dr. Friedman, are unemployed and too poor to be able to afford to buy anything. The country's natural resources have already been privatized and sold off, what's left in the smoldering husk Dr. Friedman leaves behind to entice investment?

In sum, what Dr. Friedman describes as freedom of choice is an attempt to legitimize and apply a palatable facade to a wild west approach to economics, in the which the strongest and most ruthless rise at the expense of the weak, a kind of economic Darwinism. It's not without logic, but the cold, cruel, heartless world Dr. Friedman has to offer is a pretty terrifying place.

The relationship between freedom and economics is undeniable. Also undeniable is the relationship between government and freedom. Milton Friedman brilliantly makes a clear persuasive case for the perpetuation of free markets and the elimination of big government, as a means of augmenting freedom worldwide and as a result expand prosperity. Although this book is over 27 years old, the economic principles of this book are as timeless as Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations".

The book covers topics, such as socialized medicine, which is even more popular today, due in large part to the propaganda promulgated by the sensationalist media circuits. Of course, Americans do not want socialized medicine so proponents are euphemistically calling it "universal healthcare". Mr. Friedman expressed that "in our opinion there is no use whatsoever for socialized medicine. On the contrary, government already plays too large a role in medical care. Any further expansion of its role would very much against the interest of patients, physicians, and health care personnel." This book was written almost 3 decades ago when the expenditure of healthcare was huge, however, not as appalling as it is now at close to 15% of the country's GDP. There are many factors involved in the rising healthcare costs, not the least of which is the government's inability to operate any activity cheaper and more efficiently than the private sector. There are no exceptions to this. None! Unfortunately, the tendency of government is to increase funding for programs that don't work. If it isn't working, then it must mean it needs more funding, is the philosophy of government. This clearly goes counter to the much more efficient private sector where costs are controlled in order to attain a dirty little concept called profits. It is in the self-interest of people and companies and not their benevolence, that most of the freedom and economic progress is dependent upon, according to Adam Smith and Milton Friedman.

Mr. Friedman was a radical free trade crusader and the evidence espoused in this book is overwhelmingly effective at convincing most open-minded individuals. Friedman goes on to write "Wherever we find any large element of individual freedom, some measure of progress in the material comforts at the disposal of ordinary citizens, and widespread hope of further progress in the future, there we also find that market activity is organized mainly through the free market." He goes on to warn us that "Wherever the state undertakes to control in detail the economic activities of its citizens, wherever, that is, detailed central economic planning reigns, there ordinary citizens are in political fetters, have a low standard of living, and have little power to control their own destiny." He further declares that under such governments impressive monuments may be produced and a certain class may enjoy a full measure of material goods, however, ordinary citizens will become merely "instruments to be used for the state's purpose" and will receive only what is "necessary to keep them docile and reasonably productive."

Friedman also covers topics on education, consumer protection, inflation, unions and what he believed, at that time, was a "turning of the tide" into a more free market based mentality by the general population. This period, however, was when Carter was still in office and Reagan was coming in with his message of small government and as a result reduction in taxes. I'm afraid that we are again seeing a turning of the tide, this time, unfortunately, we are headed into larger government and more social programs, due in large part to the short memory of the American public of what communism used to be and the continual romanticizing of socialist countries that provide its population with cradle to grave social programs, almost always at the expense of freedom and progress. We must be careful!

This book is a must-read to gain a fundamental understanding of economics, and as a reminder of the basic economic principles that have made America great. Enjoy!

Booker T. Washington never blames slavery for his problems. Instead he looks forward to the future, and works hard to create a school that helps
black people.
He has a positive attitude which attracts the help he needs to build his school. We can all learn from Booker T. Washington.
Very inspiring.
I loved this book.

Very interesting perspective on slavery from someone who actually lived through it. All slave tales are not alike.

Up from Slavery, autobiography by Booker T. Washington, is a true classic in African-American literature. Washington opens Chapter 1: "A Slave Among Slaves" with his vivid recollections as a Negro child growing up in the South: a slave on a plantation in Virginia, a white father he never knew, illiterate and living in horrid conditions. After the emancipation of slaves, Washington's family moves to West Virginia where he labors at the salt furnace and in the coal mines. In his precious few moments of spare time, he learns to read and gains enough confidence to leave everything behind to journey to the Hampton Institute. Later, because of his success at Hampton, he is given the opportunity to start Tuskegee Institute in Alabama. Tuskegee Institute is successful partly due to Washington's extensive travel to the North to solicit funds for the school. The students at Tuskegee, in addition to the day-to-day traditional class work, are expected to learn an industrious trade and to work at mastering that trade. Based on his own life experience, Washington believes that the most prudent way the Negro race will persevere is through this combination of education, hard work and service to others. He believes that the White race will come to appreciate the Negro race only if the Negro people prove their worth to society. Because of his passive stance, many, such as W.E.B. DuBois, et. al., labeled Washington as "The Great Accomodator." In other words, accommodating those who were the enslavers instead of advocating for the rights of those who were enslaved. You can get a sense of this in Washington's most notable speech, the address to the Atlanta Cotton States and International Exposition of 1895:

"The wisest among my race understand that the agitation of questions of social equality is the extremist folly, and that progress in the enjoyment of all the privileges that will come to us must be the result of severe and constant struggle rather than artificial forcing."

This speech brought national acclaim to Booker T. Washington and, at the time, placed him in the forefront as one of the leading authorities of his race.

This book is one in a vast library of African American literary history that I posses. It is academically written, yet very easy to read. The contents of this text continue to inspire my will to be a great humanitarian, world citizen, and advocate for African education, science, medicine, and unity

Washington was born into slavery as a result of his mother having been raped by her master. This autobiography is a recounting of his struggle from slavery to freedom and on to getting an education and becoming a teacher and then an educational administrator as well as a "Black politician."

In American culture, this narrative is cast as the quintessential "raise yourself by your boot strap" kind of story. In fact when I was in the First Grade, I can remember my First grade teacher, Mrs. Pogue, singing the praises of "the Great Booker T. Washington."

And while there is a great deal to admire about Mr. Washington, there is also a side that only came to light after hearing the other side of his story. Washington was called an "accommodationist," "or "the great compromiser," which in the context of the times were euphemisms for being an "Uncle Tom," or the HNIC. He was good at maneuvering his way around in a racist white culture thinking that he was doing his people a great deal of good when in fact he was being taken advantage of, or when he was in fact consciously "selling his people out." By making a "virtue, out of personal necessity," Washington always had a good justification for his action and eventually became the prototype of this kind of black politician. Many Black preachers still use the Washington template for handling cross-racial situations. Plus how else were blacks to negotiate the difficult racist political terrain of those difficult times?

In the book, for instance, he eschews and discourages blacks from seeking a liberal arts education and from attending college, as being frivolous. He argued for the more practical area of the "manual arts," and "the trades." While this may have been useful -- even good advice -- in the context of the times, there were others of his contemporaries, such as WEB Dubois, who saw Washington's approach as strictly a formulaic kind of Uncle Tomism. And the embarrassing treatment of him at the 1905 World's Fair, kind of sealed this image of him as a Black Uncle Tom by blacks and a "stooge" by whites.

While the book is a good read, in retrospect, it shows Washington to have been very naïve politically, and too trusting of "the white man," who it seems never quite saw the world as he did and neither had Washington's, nor the black race's best interests in mind. Maybe it is a bit harsh to judge his action after the fact, but all other black leaders are judged by the same criteria and they come out unblemished, while Washington's accommodationist methods do not seem to have held up well over time nor have they bore any fruit.

Three Stars

The Shadow University takes the political correctness horror of the early 90's and puts it into prospective. It was a nightmare time for professors, even those with tenure. No one cared. The female student was always right. No one, student or teacher, was safe from attack. Universities did not follow their own rules. Many good professors lost jobs and left teaching. What a sad day for higher education. This book tells the story and it is sad.

I remember trusting Siskel & Ebert for movie reviews and Consumer Reports for cars and other products. Now I have a sure fire way to determine whether or not I want to read a book (vs. judging it by its cover). I simply read Publisher's Weekly review and do a George Constanza -- the exact opposite of what they say. It has worked brilliantly. Thanks PW.

A lawyer and a professor team up to take on the American university establishment! But in this case, the two Davids have an ally: the U.S. court system. Taking college after college to court, the pair not only obtained results exonerating those faculty and students denied their rights of free speech and due process but logged some blistering denunciations of the colleges for their denial of basic Constitutional rights from the judges who heard the cases. Kors and Silvergate have since set up a website where students and teachers can register what is being done to them. Visit it at www.thefire.org and read some of what's happening. If that doesn't scare you, don't bother watching Frankenstein.

They have also set up a new website, www.campusrights.org, where students can find information on how to defend and protect their own rights on campus.

The only thing one can say against the book is that its focus is so restricted. But that is also the book's strength. For a full and thorough account of what is going on and how it got that way, you need to read other recent books on the subject, such as The Rape of Alma Mater. One of the nice things about The Shadow University is that the two authors are liberals. This is not some biased conservative ranting.

It's a pity that conservatives don't read this book and find out what true liberalism is. If they did, maybe they'd stop calling the people who have taken over the colleges "liberals." And maybe true liberals would stop thinking that the current power elite are liberals and that it is the duty of every right-thinking person to agree with them.

It is difficult to believe that only forty years ago, American colleges and universities tilted toward the right and that leftist thought and professors were the exception rather than the rule. Then starting in the mid 60s, the left tilt began, and with it an entirely new paradigm of pedagogy became institutionally entrenched. In THE SHADOW UNIVERSITY, Kors and Silverglate detail not only how this came about but also sound a clarion call to today's parents that when deciding which school to send their children that they ought to consider that school's speech codes at least as important as the rankings in US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT.

The first thing that all incoming freshman receive at most colleges is a political/social/sexual/ethnic indoctrination that compares in both kind and degree to that which used to be used in thuggish regimes of the past. They are told that white men are inherently biased and racist, that blacks have a right to exhibit the same racist attitudes that are prohibited to whites, that the credo in each catalogue that boasts of freedom of speech is immediately qualified by a depressingly long list of forbidden deeds, words, and thoughts, and ultimately that a double standard in the treatment of favored groups is quite the accepted thing.

The authors consider the writings of Herbert Marcuse as a prime reason for this astonishing turnaround. In the 60s, Marcuse argued that freedom of speech for all really amounts to a denial of that freedom towards the weaker such that the stronger could continue to dominate. His solution was to deny or reduce freedom of the stronger so that the weaker could compete on what he saw as a more level playing field. His new theory instantly was trumpted by the left as the answer to institutionalized racism. In fact, every speech code today can be directly traced to Marcuse. Most of the chapters in their book list many examples of quotes taken directly from administrators themselves in their written justifications for their decisions to punish erring students like Eden Jacobowitz of Penn, who in 1993 called a raucus group of Afro-American females "water buffalo," a term that to him meant a rude collection of obnoxious revelers but to them meant a racist euphemism. Jacobowitz spent the next year in politically correct hell, not for what was in his mind but what was in theirs. It is this probing of the inner thoughts of students that Kors and Silverglate find reprehensible. The solution they claim is that sunlight in the best disinfectant.

Such books as THE SHADOW UNIVERSITY represent a badly needed wake up call not just for students and parents, but for the power-hungry administrators who fail to realize that the pendulum that swung left in the 60s could just as quickly swing right, crushing the careers of those who fail to see the new political writing on the wal..

This book will make you angry. If it doesn't, then you did not READ it. Many of the examples in the book made me rethink how the college life is. Too often, Americans look at the universities as places of open and honest debate about ideas regarding society and then we are disappointed when we see that academia is stifling and punishing free expression.
Speech codes and suppression of politically incorrect ideas are shown throughout the book as harmful not only to the education process, but to American ideals as well.
This is an excellent expose' indicting the so-called tolerant universities as the most intolerant of them all. Whatever happened to freedom of expression? You can't say that on college campuses in the US anymore.