Steven Bender would like the United States to be better. “In this book,” he opens, “I identify and apply a moral compass, steeped in history, that can guide decision makers and all of us on our journey toward an advanced humanity and one that avoids moral blind spots” (6). This is, then, a work of advocacy, a critique of many recent and current US laws, policies, and programmes, and suggestions for ways in which change might occur. Mea Culpa is very much in keeping with Bender's earlier work, referenced frequently here, in which he has advocated forcefully for the rights of immigrants to the United States, particularly those from a Latino/a background. Here, though, Bender expands his scope to consider other groups in the United States who, he believes, have been “dehumanized” by official or unofficial actions: farm workers, the poor, homosexuals, death row inmates, Muslims, African Americans, and women.

Bender takes his framework from instances of official regret, policies and actions for which governments federal and state have, in the past, apologized: slavery, Jim Crow, lynching, the treatment of Native Americans, Japanese internment during World War II, the exclusion of Chinese immigrants, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, and forced sterilizations. Examining these historical events for “common clues that should have been evident contemporaneously to policymakers and other participants” (16), he concludes that the common theme is “the perceived lesser humanity of the targets and victims” (23). Armed with this knowledge, policymakers and the public can “foresee the potential for societal regret and … thus alter the course of history during the current generation” (25). Rather than having to wait decades for official recognition of the harm done to individuals and groups by official policy, the book argues, damaging policies and laws can be identified and changed today, thus avoiding the need for official regret and preventing enormous harm being inflicted.

Mea Culpa is an important book. It seeks to point out, clearly and forcefully, the ways in which the actions of the media, policymakers, judges, lawyers, and ordinary Americans undermine the humanity of the groups considered here. Each chapter opens with a discussion of the language in which the various groups have been described and debated: the cumulative impact of the quotes and the realization of exactly who is saying them provide a major jolt to the reader. Here is prejudice, disdain, discrimination, laid bare. Of course, this is Bender's aim: to create outrage in the reader before moving on to discuss how the attitudes reflected in that language have found their way into laws and practices which have major consequences for those targeted. In highlighting the prejudices of contemporary American society, Bender seeks to narrow the distance between America today and the America of the past, about which modern Americans might ask, “How could they?” “[E]ven as we apologize for past regrettable practices, we tend to reuse those techniques against new vulnerable groups,” he argues, showing clearly the connections between actions of the past and those of today (130). “How could we?” is the question he would like Americans to ask and then act on. In highlighting key areas where this question should be asked, the book offers an important critique of the modern United States.

In its execution, however, the book does not always live up to its lofty aims. Bender's knowledge of and interest in the plight of immigrants is clear in one chapter which deals with immigration directly and a second which discusses farmworkers, who are increasingly drawn from the ranks of undocumented workers. Here the historical and contemporary issues are clear, detailed, and well developed: together the two chapters account for almost a quarter of the book's length (forty-three pages). By contrast, the complexities of the history of the battle for women's rights (eleven pages) or gay rights (nine pages) are given short shrift, addressed superficially at best. The chapters on anti-Muslim sentiment and on perceptions of death row prisoners are addressed in slightly more detail but suffer many of the same weaknesses, particularly surprising in the case of the latter because, as Bender points out, the actions which put most individuals on death row set them apart from many of the other groups addressed in the book.

Equally, although the book's subtitle suggests consideration of both law and history in the debate, historians and legal scholars are likely to find little new here. While there is historical information, there is relatively little detailed historical analysis in some chapters. For example, discussion of the AIDS crisis and the Reagan administration's (lack of) response, which had a major impact on the lives of thousands of men and women as well as on public perception of the gay community, is covered in less than a paragraph, despite the clear links to the book's overarching theme. Likewise legal scholars will find little in the way of new analysis of major cases. That the Supreme Court has often interpreted the Bill of Rights as protecting discriminatory and harmful policies rather than protecting the individuals targeted is clearly important but this is hardly new to anyone with a passing knowledge of the topics under discussion. Detailed discussion of the Court's language or reasoning, or the cases’ historical contexts, is largely absent here. The highly emotive and legally complex debates about retribution and deterrence when discussing the death penalty, for example, are mentioned in a single sentence. It is difficult to leave many of these chapters without a sense of frustration at what is missing here.

Mea Culpa is well intentioned and has important aims. Understood as a work of advocacy, it asks important questions about contemporary America and some of its current policies. In combining a broad range of issues it encourages the reader to make connections between otherwise seemingly unconnected groups and policies. And it lays bare some of the painful and destructive consequences of these policies that too often are covered with the language of public safety, public welfare, security, or economics. But the brevity with which some of the issues are discussed often works to undermine these aims. Academic scholars are just as likely to be frustrated by the absences here as they are to applaud the book's scope and ambition. As for the general public, which Bender identifies in his conclusion as an important factor in bringing about change, those already sympathetic to Bender's conclusions will find their views reinforced; those who might disagree with his conclusions are likely to find insufficient detail to convince them to change their views. Approached with an awareness of these limitations, however, there is much to like about Mea Culpa and if it encourages its readers to look further into the issues discussed then perhaps Bender's hopes of broader social change in the near future can become a reality.