150+ Books You Should Be Reading In Class, But Probably Aren’t

Sociology:

Thomas Sowell, Black RedNecks and White Liberals

Shelby Steele, White Guilt

Abigail and Stephan Thernstrom, America In Black and White

James Q. Wilson, Crime & Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime

Dinesh D’Souza, The End of Racism

Douglas Rushkoff, Life Inc.: How the World Became a Corporation and How to Take It Back

Women’s Studies:

Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?

Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, Professing Feminism: Education and Indoctrination in Women’s Studies

Phyllis Chesler, The Death of Feminism

Wendy Shalit: A Return to Modesty

Stephen Rhoads: Taking Sex Differences Seriously


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

August 10th, 2010
Topic: Adopt a Dissenting Book, Uncategorized Tags: None
  • Martin K Keene

    Recommend you add the following to list under History
    1> “As We Go Marching”
    2> “The Roosevelt Myth”
    Both written by John T. Flynn printed 1954

  • http://lewitacja.com/ Imprezy integracyjne wrocław

    Often, children in schools that do not read most of the national literature. Then it does not have the sense of patriotism.

  • Nullifidian

    This list does more than any critic of reactionism (I will not degrade the term “conservatism” here) ever could to point out the far-right’s cultural illiteracy. Recommending “A Patriot’s History of the United States”? Calling “Atlas Shrugged” literature? Calling D’Souza’s comic polemic “The End of Racism” a work of sociology?

    One can see where the problem arises from your “political philosophy” section: you don’t actually know what conservatism *is*. Out of your whole list, only two names qualify, and one of them isn’t conservative but an American libertarian (Robert Nozick — and I use “American libertarian” to distinguish the term from its European connotation). Only Michael Oakeshott qualifies as a genuine conservative philosopher. You lot need to sit down with a copy of Russell Kirk’s “The Conservative Mind: From Burke to Santayana” to correct your state of ignorance (and this is another book notable by its absence).

    Do any of you actually know how academia works? Simply gainsaying some existing thought identified as ‘liberal’ is not enough to get you qualified as an academically sound conservative thinker. You actually have to apply some scholarship to your thoughts and open yourself up to the criticism of your colleagues. It’s revealing, then, that the majority of these works are right-wing polemics from the popular presses. To be taught in academia, you have to have something worth the reading. Biographies are not taught in college unless the figures have actually *done* something, which few of your selections qualify. Why the hell should a student read “Radical Son”? Just because it’s by David Horowitz and he whines about lefties? If you wanted a conservative figure to feature in your biography section, why not suggest John Henry Newman’s “Apologia Pro Vita Sua”? At least that has some cognizable reason for being included in a British literature class, for example.

    Pull yourselves together and start writing stuff with actual scholarly merit if you want to be admitted into the community of scholars.