What do you think?
Rate this book
Alchemy of Race and Rights: Diary of a Law Professor
Patricia Williams is a lawyer and a professor of commercial law, the great-great-granddaughter of a slave and a white southern lawyer. The Alchemy of Race and Rights is an eloquent autobiographical essay in which the author reflects on the intersection of race, gender, and class. Using the tools of critical literary and legal theory, she sets out her views of contemporary popular culture and current events, from Howard Beach to homelessness, from Tawana Brawley to the law-school classroom, from civil rights to Oprah Winfrey, from Bernhard Goetz to Mary Beth Whitehead. She also traces the workings of “ordinary racism”―everyday occurrences, casual, unintended, banal perhaps, but mortifying. Taking up the metaphor of alchemy, Williams casts the law as a mythological text in which the powers of commerce and the Constitution, wealth and poverty, sanity and insanity, wage war across complex and overlapping boundaries of discourse. In deliberately transgressing such boundaries, she pursues a path toward racial justice that is, ultimately, transformative.
Williams gets to the roots of racism not by finger-pointing but by much gentler methods. Her book is full of anecdote and witness, vivid characters known and observed, trenchant analysis of the law’s shortcomings. Only by such an inquiry and such patient phenomenology can we understand racism. The book is deeply moving and not so, finally, just because racism is wrong―we all know that. What we don’t know is how to unthink the process that allows racism to persist. This Williams enables us to see. The result is a testament of considerable beauty, a triumph of moral tactfulness. The result, as the title suggests, is magic.
Williams gets to the roots of racism not by finger-pointing but by much gentler methods. Her book is full of anecdote and witness, vivid characters known and observed, trenchant analysis of the law’s shortcomings. Only by such an inquiry and such patient phenomenology can we understand racism. The book is deeply moving and not so, finally, just because racism is wrong―we all know that. What we don’t know is how to unthink the process that allows racism to persist. This Williams enables us to see. The result is a testament of considerable beauty, a triumph of moral tactfulness. The result, as the title suggests, is magic.
272 pages, Paperback
First published March 1, 1991
42 people are currently reading
1,803 people want to read
About the author
Patricia J. Williams
32books53followersPatricia J. Williams is an American legal scholar and a proponent of critical race theory.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
March 2, 2022
The greatest joy of this book is spending so much quality time with the author’s mind (and her literary way of expressing it). It’s an incredible legal mind, as emotionally powered as it is rational in the way it takes apart the way we (everyone, not just “us�) view the world, with a special focus on race and law. It’s a humorous, inventive mind. It’s a mind that gave me many revelatory moments, many smiles and some laughter, and many moments when I silently exclaimed. Although thirty years old, this book sadly doesn’t feel out of date at all. It helps to have a legal background, or this book might be a rougher ride than it was for me.
Here’s a short piece from the middle of the book that gives you an idea how Williams� mind works:
The director of the Rockettes defended the all-white line on artistic grounds. She said that the dancers were supposed to be “mirror images� of one another and added: “One or two black girls in the line would definitely distract. You would lose the whole look of precision . . .
Mere symmetry, of course, could be achieved by hiring all black dancers. It could be achieved by hiring light-skinned black dancers, in the tradition of the Cotton Club’s grand heyday of condescension. It could be achieved by hiring an even number of black dancers and then placing them like little black anchors at either end or like hubcaps at the center, or by speckling them throughout the lineup at even intervals, for a nice checkerboard, melting-pot effect. It could be achieved by letting all the white dancers brown themselves in the sun a bit, to match the black dancers—something they were forbidden to do for many years, because the owner of the Rockettes didn’t want them to look “like colored girls.� There are many ways to get a racially mixed lineup to look like a mirror image of itself. Hiring one black, however, is not the way to do it.
Here’s a short piece from the middle of the book that gives you an idea how Williams� mind works:
The director of the Rockettes defended the all-white line on artistic grounds. She said that the dancers were supposed to be “mirror images� of one another and added: “One or two black girls in the line would definitely distract. You would lose the whole look of precision . . .
Mere symmetry, of course, could be achieved by hiring all black dancers. It could be achieved by hiring light-skinned black dancers, in the tradition of the Cotton Club’s grand heyday of condescension. It could be achieved by hiring an even number of black dancers and then placing them like little black anchors at either end or like hubcaps at the center, or by speckling them throughout the lineup at even intervals, for a nice checkerboard, melting-pot effect. It could be achieved by letting all the white dancers brown themselves in the sun a bit, to match the black dancers—something they were forbidden to do for many years, because the owner of the Rockettes didn’t want them to look “like colored girls.� There are many ways to get a racially mixed lineup to look like a mirror image of itself. Hiring one black, however, is not the way to do it.
January 21, 2015
Strong discussion against objectivity of race in legal arguments. Williams explores the power of language and context in law through personal experience and knowledge.
"What is “impersonal� writing but denial of self? If withholding is an ideology worth teaching, we should be clearer about that as the bottom line of the enterprise. We should also acknowledge the extent to which denial of one’s authority in authorship is not the same as elimination of oneself; it is ruse, not reality. And the object of such ruse is to empower still further; to empower beyond the self, by appealing to neutral, shared, even universal understandings. In a vacuum, I suppose there’s nothing wrong with that attempt to empower: it generates respect and distance and a certain obeisance to the sleekness of a product that has been skinned of its personalized complication. But in a world of real others, the cost of such exclusive forms of discourse is empowerment at the expense of one’s relation to those others; empowerment without communion. And as the comfort of such false power becomes habitual, it is easy to forget that the source of one’s power is quite limited, not the fiat of a heavenly mandate. It is easy to forget how much that grandiosity of power depends on the courtesy and restraint of a society of others no less equally endowed that you.
The other thing contained in assumption of neutral, impersonal writing styles is the lack of risk. It is not only a ruse, but a warm protective hole to crawl in, as if you were to throw your shoe out the front door while insisting that no one’s home. I also believe that the personal is not the same as “private�: the personal is merely highly particular. I think the personal has fallen into disrepute as sloppy because we have lost the courage and the vocabulary to describe it in the face of the enormous social pressure to “keep it to ourselves”—but this is where our most idealistic and our deadliest politics are lodged, and are revealed."
(92-93)
"What is “impersonal� writing but denial of self? If withholding is an ideology worth teaching, we should be clearer about that as the bottom line of the enterprise. We should also acknowledge the extent to which denial of one’s authority in authorship is not the same as elimination of oneself; it is ruse, not reality. And the object of such ruse is to empower still further; to empower beyond the self, by appealing to neutral, shared, even universal understandings. In a vacuum, I suppose there’s nothing wrong with that attempt to empower: it generates respect and distance and a certain obeisance to the sleekness of a product that has been skinned of its personalized complication. But in a world of real others, the cost of such exclusive forms of discourse is empowerment at the expense of one’s relation to those others; empowerment without communion. And as the comfort of such false power becomes habitual, it is easy to forget that the source of one’s power is quite limited, not the fiat of a heavenly mandate. It is easy to forget how much that grandiosity of power depends on the courtesy and restraint of a society of others no less equally endowed that you.
The other thing contained in assumption of neutral, impersonal writing styles is the lack of risk. It is not only a ruse, but a warm protective hole to crawl in, as if you were to throw your shoe out the front door while insisting that no one’s home. I also believe that the personal is not the same as “private�: the personal is merely highly particular. I think the personal has fallen into disrepute as sloppy because we have lost the courage and the vocabulary to describe it in the face of the enormous social pressure to “keep it to ourselves”—but this is where our most idealistic and our deadliest politics are lodged, and are revealed."
(92-93)
April 17, 2009
I've read and re-read this book a million times... just finished re-reading it... what can I say besides that Pat Williams is a genius? Her anecdotes connect legal theory with practice, and in a broader sense, she is able to concretely relay what it means to be a person-of-color navigating through a network of elite, WASP communities and institutions. Also, she's one of my professors at the moment, so I can say with complete confidence that she is brilliant and equally humble.
March 8, 2009
in the midst of law school, some 18 years ago, i read this book. it made me feel less alone in that oft alienating environment. it reminded me why i was there and why i was doing what i was doing. patricia williams is brilliant!
November 8, 2014
The most inspiring book for lawyers who went into the profession as idealists and now wonder what the hell they're doing. Law is a powerful field, but the sheer force of its conservatism (i.e. love of status quo) can make it a difficult career choice for activists and agents of social change. Patricia Williams, in her scholarly but oh-so-approachable style, illuminates both the promise of law and its failures. She is not a cynic. She is not a "realist" (one who opts to "take life as it comes"). Patricia Williams is no less than a true visionary who has been tested in the crucible. Her work reminds me why I chose to become a lawyer--even in the moments when I too stand on the pile of rubble that were once my dreams for the profession and wonder "what now?"
July 24, 2009
I learned that the deeply nuanced complexity of racial identity can drive an intelligent person mad, if she lets it. A worthwhile read.
Read
May 2, 2023This one was a bit above my pay grade, so I'm forgoing a star rating and leaving a few spare thoughts here.
- Clearly an influential book in critical theory. Even without a firm grasp of the context of legal analysis at the time, I sensed that I was reading a voice that had stepped out on its own with a novel and new approach to the discipline.
- That voice remains fresh and relevant today. Almost everything here can be read in the context of today's discussions of race and rights.
- For someone like myself, who was a child when this was published, the book serves as an introduction to a number of real-world cases of racial discrimination that were discussed frequently in the press and in private conversations at the time, but have more-or-less faded from memory. So it's a good point-in-time piece of history.
- I was in over my head on a lot of the legal theory parts of the book. I struggled through and did get some comprehension from it, but it was a challenge. I wouldn't recommend this book if you're not either 1) a lawyer/law student, or 2) willing to proceed without hope of full comprehension.
- While there is an overall argument in the work, this is still a collection of related essays and can feel repetitive at times. That's fine, but it's probably best read in individual sittings. There's physical evidence of me losing steam, I earmarked a _lot_ early on and very little in the back half of the book. A prior reader who underlined a lot also petered out as the book went on.
"None of this, however, should be mistaken for doubts about the value of my education. It should not be taken as a denial of the wonderful people and wonderful moments that have also characterized my schooling and my career. My complaining doesn't mean that I devalue who I am; but just because Harvard admitted me or Stanford hired me doesn't mean that they own me to the extent that I can never speak about my feelings. There would be some element of unthinking fervor in that, I think, akin to blind patriotism: love it or leave it. Not to complain about real inequities and real sources of misery in even the most powerful institutions seems only to kow-tow to power rather than participate in a meaningful and great-souled manner."
- Clearly an influential book in critical theory. Even without a firm grasp of the context of legal analysis at the time, I sensed that I was reading a voice that had stepped out on its own with a novel and new approach to the discipline.
- That voice remains fresh and relevant today. Almost everything here can be read in the context of today's discussions of race and rights.
- For someone like myself, who was a child when this was published, the book serves as an introduction to a number of real-world cases of racial discrimination that were discussed frequently in the press and in private conversations at the time, but have more-or-less faded from memory. So it's a good point-in-time piece of history.
- I was in over my head on a lot of the legal theory parts of the book. I struggled through and did get some comprehension from it, but it was a challenge. I wouldn't recommend this book if you're not either 1) a lawyer/law student, or 2) willing to proceed without hope of full comprehension.
- While there is an overall argument in the work, this is still a collection of related essays and can feel repetitive at times. That's fine, but it's probably best read in individual sittings. There's physical evidence of me losing steam, I earmarked a _lot_ early on and very little in the back half of the book. A prior reader who underlined a lot also petered out as the book went on.
"None of this, however, should be mistaken for doubts about the value of my education. It should not be taken as a denial of the wonderful people and wonderful moments that have also characterized my schooling and my career. My complaining doesn't mean that I devalue who I am; but just because Harvard admitted me or Stanford hired me doesn't mean that they own me to the extent that I can never speak about my feelings. There would be some element of unthinking fervor in that, I think, akin to blind patriotism: love it or leave it. Not to complain about real inequities and real sources of misery in even the most powerful institutions seems only to kow-tow to power rather than participate in a meaningful and great-souled manner."
February 13, 2025
Awesome! Williams� prose is so poetic and evocative, and she conveys meaning so articulately and beautifully.
Started this because a chapter from the book was an assigned reading for my legal theory class. What surprised me revisiting the book once semester finished was Williams� humour. I didn’t realise how funny she was while I was obliged to read a chapter for uni, but now I’ve had the time to digest her writing and take it at my own pace I find her writing much more entertaining.
Some really prescient messages on race and the law, even though the book was written over thirty years ago. So interesting to read in the context of Trump 2.0, and I could feel lots of commonalities as a student of colour at law school.
Totally recommend for anyone studying law and also for anyone more broadly interested in critical race theory.
Started this because a chapter from the book was an assigned reading for my legal theory class. What surprised me revisiting the book once semester finished was Williams� humour. I didn’t realise how funny she was while I was obliged to read a chapter for uni, but now I’ve had the time to digest her writing and take it at my own pace I find her writing much more entertaining.
Some really prescient messages on race and the law, even though the book was written over thirty years ago. So interesting to read in the context of Trump 2.0, and I could feel lots of commonalities as a student of colour at law school.
Totally recommend for anyone studying law and also for anyone more broadly interested in critical race theory.
April 8, 2022
annoying luke warm anti-communist critical legal theory made by a law professor who clearly hates her profession
November 19, 2023
Remind me to re-read to this book in a few years, when I can hopefully comprehend it better. The writing was beautiful, witty, observant, and sometimes over my head (what do the polar bears mean????)
Read
June 15, 2021I too love anecdotes
December 22, 2015
Wherein a law professor meditates on being the object of property. I read portions of this in law school. I’m glad I did. It is, to no small extent, a critical reflection on being The Other in the academy. The author was one of the first African American professors at Harvard and she was very much alone. Among the things that reinforced her aloneness were gratuitously racist factual scenarios on exams. E.g. 84 (what are “the tax implications for Kunta Kinte’s master when the slavecatchers cut off his foot�?). She has quite a list. When she pushed back, the academy responded defensively and childishly. 91. My vague dislike of Harvard continues unabated.
She also recounts the story of one of her students who transitioned while in law school. 122. When the student started using the women’s restroom, some members of the student body totally lost their tiny normative minds:
122-23. I’m watching this same fight go on right now and I’m horrified that in 25 years, we couldn’t see our way to just letting people pee in peace.
This book is agonizing in a lot of ways. Professor Williams is a real product of our country, our moral triumphs and our moral defeats. She is also the descendent of a lawyer. As she recounts, “My great-great-grandfather Austin Miller, a thirty-five-year-old lawyer, impregnated my eleven-year-old great-great-grandmother Sophie, making her the mother of Mary, my great-grandmother, by the time she was twelve.� 155. Professor Williams� mother told her she “had nothing to fear in law school, that law was ‘in my blood.’� 217.
As a book, it’s a little disjointed; felt like a bunch of essays strung together rather than a long form piece. But as individual pieces, they are powerful. The last essay, “On Being the Object of Property� is both a gut punch and incredibly generous.
Well worth the time.
She also recounts the story of one of her students who transitioned while in law school. 122. When the student started using the women’s restroom, some members of the student body totally lost their tiny normative minds:
There was an enormous outcry from women students of all political persuasions, who ‘felt raped� in addition to the more academic assertions of some who ‘feared rape.� In a complicated storm of homophobia, the men of the student body let it be known that they too ‘feared rape� and vowed to chase her out of any and all men’s rooms. The oppositional forces of men and women reached a compromise: S. should use the dean’s bathroom. Alas, in the dean’s bathroom no resolution was to be found, for the suggestion had not been an honest one but merely an integration of the fears of each side. Then, in his turn of the dean, circumspection having gotten him this far in life, expressed polite, well-modulated fears about the appearance of impropriety in having students visit his inner sanctum, and many other things most likely related to his fear of a real compromise of hierarchy.
122-23. I’m watching this same fight go on right now and I’m horrified that in 25 years, we couldn’t see our way to just letting people pee in peace.
This book is agonizing in a lot of ways. Professor Williams is a real product of our country, our moral triumphs and our moral defeats. She is also the descendent of a lawyer. As she recounts, “My great-great-grandfather Austin Miller, a thirty-five-year-old lawyer, impregnated my eleven-year-old great-great-grandmother Sophie, making her the mother of Mary, my great-grandmother, by the time she was twelve.� 155. Professor Williams� mother told her she “had nothing to fear in law school, that law was ‘in my blood.’� 217.
As a book, it’s a little disjointed; felt like a bunch of essays strung together rather than a long form piece. But as individual pieces, they are powerful. The last essay, “On Being the Object of Property� is both a gut punch and incredibly generous.
Well worth the time.
October 25, 2015
I honestly love her manipulation of prose to convey legal jargon in a manner that is not off putting but instead very inviting for those who might not be familiar with heavy concepts related to this country's racial relationship to the formation of laws and how they are carried out in a modern context. It was breathtaking to see the personal interwoven with legal theory, I was honestly unsure of if I would like this book because I thought it would be weighted down by inaccessible language and concepts but the author really made this piece not only digestible but also a literary delight. In the end I have walked away from this book with a wealth of knowledge and more comfort in my plans to pursue law... it's definitely a must read for racially marginalized folks thinking about law school and academia.
February 19, 2008
I first read this book as an earnest, politically-correcting-myself undergrad, but took another look as a post-grad cynic and was blown away yet again. It's not so much her arguments, which are familiar, as her rhetorical style, which is, simply, mad. And brilliantly so. She is an utterly unique writer, and while her baroque language and often counter-intuitive argumentation tend to read in her later work as incoherence, here she pulls it off. Worth checking out especially for her chapter on the Tawana Brawley case.
November 20, 2019
This is a simply superb collection of essays Columbia University law prof and columnist for The Nation who brings the well trained eye of a Critical Legal Theorist to the social and political struggles of the contemporary USA. She has an astounding ability to blend legal thinking, literary theory and historical analysis with everyday politics and life.
January 21, 2022
Brilliantly written. I read a few times. Professor Patricia Williams is vibrant and through her personal experience and depth of her research I saw much of my own. One of the best in the intersection of law and race. Do read it. It takes 5 stars but I wish I had more to give!
June 19, 2010
I can't speak about Williams' ideas because her overly-affected, wouldbe-poet style obscures any real thought. No wonder this book cost me only $.50.
August 29, 2016
This belongs on all our bookshelves. I'll read this many times over.
June 19, 2020
This is the best book I've read in a while. I am so obsessed with Williams' writing and voice; I want to be friends with her. Her writing is rich with humor interlaced with memoir and legal theory. All law students should read this book but it's certainly accessible to others. Some thoughts:
p. 72 - "No one existed for well-intentioned white people who could not be governed by their intentions."
p. 87 - racist law school exams require law students to indulge in rationalizing racial hatred or to suppress any sense of social conscious!!
p. 94 - "Misery may love company but I trust none of us particularly loves misery."
p. 107 - the sausage rotfl - Williams excerpts a closing argument that she made when she was arguing a suit against a sausage manufacturer. But of course Williams seamlessly transitions from this humorous example to "rediscovering those injuries made invisible by the bounds of legal discourse."
p. 164 - the analogy to sorcery in her critique of rights critique is ingenious. Audibly said "wow" when reading.
The final essay "On Being the Object of Property (a gift of intelligent rage)," opens on Williams' positionality as the descendant of her great-great-grandmother Sophie, who was enslaved and impregnated at 11 years old by a white lawyer. On the cusp of her entry to Harvard Law school, Williams discusses the "troubling paradox" of "[r]eclaiming that from which one has been disinherited."
In all, I was blown away by every essay and I really hope I get to learn more from her (in reading or in class). I look forward to reading her next work.
p. 72 - "No one existed for well-intentioned white people who could not be governed by their intentions."
p. 87 - racist law school exams require law students to indulge in rationalizing racial hatred or to suppress any sense of social conscious!!
p. 94 - "Misery may love company but I trust none of us particularly loves misery."
p. 107 - the sausage rotfl - Williams excerpts a closing argument that she made when she was arguing a suit against a sausage manufacturer. But of course Williams seamlessly transitions from this humorous example to "rediscovering those injuries made invisible by the bounds of legal discourse."
p. 164 - the analogy to sorcery in her critique of rights critique is ingenious. Audibly said "wow" when reading.
The final essay "On Being the Object of Property (a gift of intelligent rage)," opens on Williams' positionality as the descendant of her great-great-grandmother Sophie, who was enslaved and impregnated at 11 years old by a white lawyer. On the cusp of her entry to Harvard Law school, Williams discusses the "troubling paradox" of "[r]eclaiming that from which one has been disinherited."
In all, I was blown away by every essay and I really hope I get to learn more from her (in reading or in class). I look forward to reading her next work.
January 2, 2025
It's become trite and even condescending to refer to Black American writing (in fiction or non-fiction) about race and racism as "prophetic" but regarding this 1991 book by Williams, it would be a failure to note how starkly relevant and of-the-moment it still feels.
As a result, much of the book recounts violence, but Williams threads carefully between a clear description of that reality, without losing sight of the wider social context of these events and processes. I read her thesis as being that these incidents weave together a social fabric of anti-blackness with clear rhetorical and social 'purposes' - particularly her writing on insulating (some) Black expression into a presumed apoliticality was a striking example.
Peppered throughout are personal anecdotes that illustrate ways this social dynamic can even echo inwards and affect Black self-perception, which produces the more experimental passages in, as the title says, her diary.
For anyone reading more recent writing on race and racism in the United States, Williams' work is a helpfully vast overview of much of the topic, that I highly recommend as a companion to many other works on the topic.
As a result, much of the book recounts violence, but Williams threads carefully between a clear description of that reality, without losing sight of the wider social context of these events and processes. I read her thesis as being that these incidents weave together a social fabric of anti-blackness with clear rhetorical and social 'purposes' - particularly her writing on insulating (some) Black expression into a presumed apoliticality was a striking example.
Peppered throughout are personal anecdotes that illustrate ways this social dynamic can even echo inwards and affect Black self-perception, which produces the more experimental passages in, as the title says, her diary.
For anyone reading more recent writing on race and racism in the United States, Williams' work is a helpfully vast overview of much of the topic, that I highly recommend as a companion to many other works on the topic.
December 10, 2022
Patricia Williams is one of the few critical race scholars who experimented so extensively not only with challenging the content of stories being told in and around legal scholarship, but the way in which such stories were told. Williams is keenly aware of the norms of style, performance, and format used in conventional, hegemonic legal writing, and she then uses that understanding to then brilliantly flip these norms on their head to wake the reader up to their own unconscious participation in the construction of such norms. As she writes, “I am trying to create a genre of legal writing to fill the gaps of traditional legal scholarship. I would like to write in a way that reveals the intersubjectivity of legal constructions, that forces the reader both to participate in the construction of meaning and to be conscious of that process� (7-8). The result is a revolutionary fusion of literary art and legal criticism.
April 24, 2024
This is a difficult book to read. And/but the author is brilliant. From her command of language to her understanding and application of legal concepts, to her "creative" writing skills: brilliant.
But I am not a lawyer, and knew nothing about Critical Legal Studies, or Critical Race Theory. So I think that at least 30% of this went right over my head.
And yet, I learned a little bit about "CLS" and "CRT", and I was at times absolutely enchanted by her writing. And I realized that while reading Williams grapple with racism in the context of legal concepts, the "missing piece" is Wilkerson's argument about a caste system.
I was so interested, I ended up reading more online about Patricia Williams, and Derek Bell, and CLS and CRT. Any time a book motivates me to learn more, I am very grateful. So, thank you Professor Williams.
But I am not a lawyer, and knew nothing about Critical Legal Studies, or Critical Race Theory. So I think that at least 30% of this went right over my head.
And yet, I learned a little bit about "CLS" and "CRT", and I was at times absolutely enchanted by her writing. And I realized that while reading Williams grapple with racism in the context of legal concepts, the "missing piece" is Wilkerson's argument about a caste system.
I was so interested, I ended up reading more online about Patricia Williams, and Derek Bell, and CLS and CRT. Any time a book motivates me to learn more, I am very grateful. So, thank you Professor Williams.
September 25, 2017
Moving, expressive -- both emotionally and intellectually. The style meshes cohesively with the subtext, which probably makes it so effective. Does get a little one-note. Otherwise this would've been 5 stars.
February 8, 2022
I had to google a lot of words and concepts to read this book, but I’m so glad I did. I know I didn’t get as much out of it as someone who is educated in lawyery things would, but I got enough I think. I would definitely like to read more of her books in the future.
December 27, 2017
Personal and relevant, Williams offers a human viewpoint into critical race theory and law.
January 9, 2019
Read for Intro to GWS. I did not get the polar bear metaphor at all (this isn't a spoiler...I don't think) but otherwise really great!
November 21, 2020
Possibly one of the most essential books for understanding how race functions in modern America.
Read
December 10, 2021Read for class
March 2, 2022
Marxist pseudointellectual garbage aimed at affecting single-threaded, overly-emotional halfwits.
August 1, 2023
Singular and searching, and it changed legal scholarship forever. A classic!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 47 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.