In writing a review of the book, the temptation is to rewrite the book's argument, as the author does a lousy job at doing that clearly. The short version is this is one of those Velvet Underground books, where it is probably for a small audience but for that audience is special; here, like the best scholarship, something that provides many fertile lines of future discussion and research.

The book is about exactly what it says on the tin, but not in the final sense like we usually use the word of talking of the benefits of diversity, but how diversity itself is defined.

That the definition is tricky is the point of the book. Specifically looking at legal interpretations of diversity, usually through anti-discrimination laws (and thus the lawsuits arising from them) the book is about how race and diversity is interchangeable, until it is not; not genetic, except when it is, and usually a product of the tail wagging the dog in terms of categorization, except when the categorization is useful.

If it sounds confusing, that is the point. One of the more interesting refrains in the book is when the author does a close reading of the text of a speech or court decision to observe even in close context how uses of the word will shift. There are malicious versions of this, but most are not.

The ghost at the banquet is racism. In moving away from a legislative approach that acknowledges something like the structural quality of racism, where things moved to was an ideal about diversity as a stand-in. But this legislative car was on a collision course with a scientific train in the form of genetic analysis. But before the conservative pundit that sits on my shoulder (you choose which) can say reals over feels, the book is about how that idea itself is broken. It is not, as is commonly asserted, that genetics actually supports race and racial science, but that you can't get there from here.

The analogy that I would use is that if you can imagine race as a painting of an orange, then genetics is like an orange tree. You can make a painting of an orange tree, and you can hang the painting on the orange tree, but at no point ever is there an edible fruit.

But the damned spot then is Neoliberal Capitalism (I would also accept Technopoly), since a usefulness to genetics is presumed, and so you end up with a sort of dance of Right and Left and trying to merge science with policy for profit, but in inconsistent ways, always with a focus on the individual as opposed to the system.

My first impression of the book was that it was too technical for me, not due to its obscurity or required background, but because it operates more like a law review article or series of case studies with a blended approach of law, science, and sociology. As such, the utility is to people working in the field. But an arc does appear, that I have tried to sketch out. Still, the point of the arc is more to raise doubts about the arc.

The writing has moments of brilliance, with clever and smart turns of phrase. My fear about the book is a problem that the book describes about other books and how it is hard to discuss the topic without partisans, particularly of the Right, willing to abuse the meaning of it. The topics of the individual chapters are themselves diverse, to the point that it is tempting to review each in turn, as there is lots of fun information contained therein.

In the 'not so much a question but a comment' variety, what I felt myself coming back to was the different heuristic side of the thing. This is the JD+history PhD (w/scientist spouse) take. I am as fascinated with the prospect of some of the others, particularly with a literary or linguistic take.

My thanks to the author, Jonathan Kahn, for writing the book, and to the publisher, Columbia University Press, for making the ARC available to me.

This well-written and easy-to-understand book does an excellent job of examining the challenges inherent in promoting diversity while recognizing that biological races don’t exist. It’s academic in nature, political and legal in focus, and not the science-oriented book I expected. DNF ~14%.

Thanks, NetGalley, for the ARC.

I picked this book deliberately with the intention of reading an academic diversity book.
It is part of my profession and I am used to reading scholarly texts,
This book has many interesting points to make.
I particularly found the chapter on forensic diversity to be very engaging.
Some other chapters were difficult to read, however this is part due to my lack of understanding in those areas.
A great addition to university libraries.

I liked parts of this book, but unfortunately, I did not finish. That being said, the concepts relating to genetics vs. social constructs of race and how statements by a wide variety of people/organizations are used to further even the most drastically oppositional arguments were established early on, which was a very strong start. I also found that the style of writing was very academic and may require a reader to seek more basic background information before re-approaching the concepts of this book with a better idea of its goals and significance, but once someone gets a general idea of what to expect, the sections start adding up to a more cohesive concept. In other words, audiences may most benefit from the book when they take a moment to reflect on the meaning of each concept before moving on, rather than rushing through it, as the ideas require a good amount of contemplation.

I would love to revisit this book, someday soon, because it is excellent and shows the author's dedication to analyzing such a complex topic. That must take a strong drive, to which I give kudos.

Thank you to Columbia University Press for providing this book for review consideration via NetGalley. All opinions are my own.

This book had some very interesting points, however unfortunately it did read like a textbook or scientific paper in places. The language could have been a bit more accessible and engaging, but the points were presented well and was fascinating.