| \n Title\n | \n\n Prejudice, War and the Constitution\n | \n
|---|---|
| \n Author\n | \n\n Jacobus tenBroek, Edward Barnhart, and Floyd Matson\n | \n
| \n Series\n | \n\n Japanese American Evacuation and Resettlement\n | \n
| \n Original Publisher\n | \n\n University of California Press\n | \n
| \n Original Publication Date\n | \n\n 1954\n | \n
| \n Pages\n | \n\n 408\n | \n
| \n WorldCat Link\n | \n\n \n http://www.worldcat.org/title/prejudice-war-and-the-constitution/oclc/4111532/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true\n \n | \n
\n \n Prejudice, War, and the Constitution\n \n is the third in a series of three books published by the University of California Press as part of the\n \n Japanese American Evacuation and Resettlement Study\n \n (JERS). It examines the origins, political characteristics, and legal ramifications of the removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II. The book focuses upon the far-reaching effects of these events on constitutional and civil rights.\n
\n \n\n Jacobus tenBroek was born in Alberta, Canada, on July 6, 1911. He became blind by the age of 14, after which his parents moved to Berkeley so he could attend the California School for the Blind. TenBroek eventually earned law degrees from Berkeley and Harvard Law School, and after teaching at the University of Chicago Law School, he returned to Berkeley to work in the Department of Speech and later the Department of Political Science. As an advocate for the blind, tenBroek helped to found the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) and for 20 years served as the organization's first president. In his research, he advocated for the rights of various groups, including people with disabilities, African Americans, and Japanese Americans. At the NFB, tenBroek met Floyd Matson, who was a student at Berkeley and who later served as an assistant to tenBroek. Matson, who was born in Hawai'i, eventually became a professor at the University of Hawai'i and at the University of California at Berkeley. At Berkeley, tenBroek and Matson met Edward Norton Barnhart, who received a B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. from Berkeley in psychology. From 1940 to 1942, Barnhart was an instructor at Reed College before working at the Office of War Information and later the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). In 1945, Barnhart joined the Berkeley faculty as an assistant professor of public speaking. He held a Guggenheim Fellowship for 1949-50, during which he completed research that was published in\n \n Prejudice, War and the Constitution\n \n , which he coauthored with tenBroek and Matson.\n \n Prejudice\n \n won the American Political Association's Woodrow Wilson Award in 1955.\n \n \n [1]\n \n \n
\n\n TenBroek was first approached by sociologist\n \n Dorothy Swaine Thomas\n \n in 1948 before she left the University of California and the directorship of the Japanese Evacuation and Resettlement Study. Thomas charged tenBroek with the responsibility of writing the third volume that would become\n \n Prejudice\n \n . In quick succession, Barnhart and Matson joined the project as collaborators and the book was published in 1954 and later reissued in 1968. The book itself was delayed as a result of the contentious relationship between Thomas and one of her graduate students,\n \n Morton Grodzins\n \n , who had worked for JERS as a research assistant. Thomas claimed that the information Grodzins used for his dissertation and subsequent book,\n \n [Americans Betrayed: Politics and the Japanese Evacuation (book) Americans Betrayed]\n \n (1949), was property of JERS, leading the University of California Press to object to its publication. Subsequently, tenBroek, Barnhart, and Matson refashioned Grodzin’s research into\n \n Prejudice, War, and the Constitution\n \n , which was published in 1954.\n
\n\n As the third book to emerge from the research material collected by JERS, the authors highlight the fact that this was not a sociological study of the Japanese in America that was addressed in two earlier companion volumes,\n \n [The Spoilage (book) The Spoilage]\n \n and\n \n [The Salvage (book) The Salvage]\n \n . According to the authors, \"our own study is concerned not so much with Japanese Americans as with\n \n anti\n \n -Japanese Americans—less with the spoilage than with the 'spoilers.'\"\n \n \n [2]\n \n \n In addition to the material collected by JERS, the authors utilized information obtained from three sources that were accessible after 1948: (1) interviews with former officials of the War and Justice Departments and the\n \n War Relocation Authority\n \n (WRA); (2) microfilm records of non-classified files of the\n \n Western Defense Command\n \n , the War Department, and the WRA; and (3) records, reports, and recommendations of special tribunals of the agencies involved.\n \n \n [3]\n \n \n
\n\n The book itself is divided into three sections that cover the pre- and postwar period: \"Genesis,\" \"Exodus,\" and \"Leviticus.\" Part I, \"Genesis,\" examines the nearly century long history of \"anti-Orientalism\" that came to influence the events and decisions that led to the mass removal of Japanese Americans. Part II, \"Exodus,\" examines the scope and character of the mass removal. It specifically focuses on the influence of pressure groups and politicians upon army and government officials, who sanctioned the removal and incarceration of the Japanese. Earlier authors such as Bradford Smith,\n \n Carey McWilliams\n \n , and Grodzins had previously identified pressure group members and politicians as responsible for inciting racial hysteria that led to growing support for action against Japanese Americans. However, tenBroek, Barnhart, and Matson argue that there were other individuals who played a critical role. According to the authors, responsibility for this event lies not just with General\n \n John DeWitt\n \n and the Western Defense Command, but also upon President\n \n Franklin D. Roosevelt\n \n and his civilian aides in the War Department, Secretary\n \n Henry L. Stimson\n \n , Assistant Secretary\n \n John J. McCloy\n \n , and members of Congress. Part III, \"Leviticus,\" examines the constitutional implications of this event being sanctioned by judicial authorities who \"carried judicial self-restraint to the point of judicial abdication.\"\n \n \n [4]\n \n \n The authors are particularly critical of unfettered military power even during times of war, explaining that \"the self-restraint and constitutional sensitivity of the generals cannot be relied upon as adequate sources of protection.\"\n \n \n [5]\n \n \n
\n\n Sociologist\n \n Forrest E. LaViolette\n \n , who served as a WRA\n \n community analyst\n \n at\n \n Heart Mountain\n \n , praised the third section of the book that examines the legal implication of the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans noting, \"It is superior in its style of presentation: the technical language of the jurist loses much of its awe-inspiring character; legal principles are made meaningful to the lay reader.\"\n \n \n [6]\n \n \n Reviewer Herman C. Pritchett also commends the \"masterly and incisive analysis\" of the constitutional issues involved in the removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans and one of the great failures of the Supreme Court to protect civil liberties enshrined in the constitution.\n \n \n [7]\n \n \n Similar praise was offered by Seattle redress pioneer\n \n Henry Miyatake\n \n who cites it as \"a classic book on the evacuation and constitutional issues\" as well as Raymond Y. Okamura, who noted that the book \"more squarely blamed the federal government and presented an unsurpassed discussion of the constitutional issues.\"\n \n \n [8]\n \n \n However, others were more critical such as scholar Roger Daniels, who stated: \"None of the authors had been original members of the project. Using Matson's 1953 M.A. thesis as an introduction and relying largely on the wartime materials collected by the project, they essayed their own theory of the evacuation, which approximated that put forth by Bendetsen in\n \n \n Final Report\n \n \n , although they were highly critical of the assumptions on which the military justified its decisions.\"\n \n \n [9]\n \n \n Richard Drinnon also noted that\n \n Prejudice, War, and the Constitution\n \n , \"contained much useful data, but exaggerated the responsibility of economic pressure groups.\"\n \n \n [10]\n \n \n Despite these criticisms, the authors were widely praised for addressing the constitutional issues involved in the mass removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans as they considered this event comparable to the Supreme Court failures in\n \n Prigg v. Pennsylvania\n \n and\n \n Dred Scott v. Sandford\n \n that justified slavery.\n
\n \n \n\n Allen, Charlotte Williams.\n \n The Journal of Politics\n \n 18.2 (May 1956), 362-64.\n
\n\n Chuman, Frank. \"Court Sanction of Evacuation Still 'Like a Loaded Weapon.'\"\n \n Pacific Citizen\n \n , Dec. 17, 1954, B-7.\n \n http://ddr.densho.org/ddr-pc-26-51/\n \n .\n
\n\n Graff, Henry F.\n \n The American Historical Review\n \n 60.4 (July 1955): 925-26.\n
\n\n Gardiner, Hilliard A.\n \n Columbia Law Review\n \n 56.6 (June 1956): 963-67.\n
\n\n Jones, F. C.\n \n International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-)\n \n 31.4 (Oct. \n1955): 550-51.\n
\n\n Kent, Donald P.\n \n Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science\n \n 299 (May \n1955): 169.\n
\n\n Konvitz, Milton R.\n \n California Law Review\n \n 43.1 (Mar. 1955): 169-70\n
\n