[8] Richardson advocated affirmative action to Nesmith, arguing that it would not lower academic standards and the school's administration should reexamine its assumptions about race, women and minorities.

[7] Heins provides a background of precedent established by prior cases (some of which contradict each other),[6][7] interspersed with discussions of Supreme Court decisions concerning affirmative action.

In an opinion written by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., the court ruled against racial quotas at the school while allowing minority status to remain one of several criteria in the admissions process.

[8] The author contrasts Regents of the University of California v. Bakke with the Supreme Court's 1971 decision in Griggs v. Duke Power Co., which ruled that employers did not have to willfully discriminate against employees to violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The jury's decision is examined; it found that Richardson sincerely believed that her school's administration practiced employment discrimination, and her criticism was made in good faith.

Heins critiques the compromise decision, contending that it reflects the bias of individual jurors rather than an interpretation of the law as applied to Richardson's firing by the school's administration.

[8] The Harvard Law Review said, "In this timely book, the author uses her experiences in that trial to examine issues that still vex university faculties and presidents" (including academic qualifications for a position).

[7] In the Tennessee Law Review Stephanie A. Levin wrote that Cutting the Mustard provided "a disturbing look at how ... standards are wielded to enforce conformity in the workplace",[9] citing the book in a discussion about nurturing and aggressive values and their respective places in the work environment.

[9] The Women's Rights Law Reporter gave the book a generally positive review, saying that its major drawback is an inadequate analysis of the jury's decision in the Richardson case.

[8] The review concluded: "Cutting the Mustard succeeds in presenting the debate over affirmative action by questioning traditional assumptions about merit through an absorbing account of personnel decisions at Boston University's School of Theology".

[8] Traci C. West discussed the Richardson case in a section of the book, From Midterms to Ministry, criticizing it for insufficient information about conflicts at Boston University.