1G0xxeB

Liberal Education Imperiled3 1 5and universities in the middle years of the twentieth century than itis today. 5The aim of the great-books program, and the directed-studies program atYale, is no “anything goes” education. Kronman believes that educationshould prepare students to be good citizens in a democratic republic. Whenit comes to the consideration of the best life and how we ought to live it, theauthor asserts approvingly that students should be exposed to a myriad oftexts and immersed in a debate over that question which has gone unsolvedfor thousands of years: what is the good life? It may seem like this would leadto radical skepticism; if students are offered only possibilities, then they willnot have any certainty. What if, in their pursuit of the meaning of life, theydiscover life has no meaning? Kronman’s answer to this is a revival of secularhumanism because, perhaps surprisingly, he contends we are a societyplagued with certainty. He fears there is a “rising tide” of religious fundamentalismin the country: “the revival of secular humanism is needed to helpus be doubtful again.” 6 We need more uncertainty in our lives because of theinstitutional success of political correctness. Sowing doubt for doubt’s sake isnot his aim. Rather, Kronman wants to sow a disbelief in certainties that arebad. He does not appear to want to cause disbelief in good things, or goodideas. But what exactly does he deem good?There is much that is profitable in Kronman’s book, but I will limit mydiscussion to his ideas about religion and higher education. In a chapterdedicated to political correctness, Kronman appears to conclude that thedialogue between reason and revelation is important to Western civilization.He asserts that one of the two has been completely defeated in higher educationand no longer exists, much less is able to be addressed in the classroom.Higher education used to claim the authority to investigate life’s meaning,but that has since been abandoned. The only source that professes the abilityto do so in the modern world is the church. While our author claims thatchurch and college were once synonymous—a claim that may be disputedsomewhat—higher education is now unwilling to pursue the question of life’s5Ibid., 44. This is a disputed question. Some have argued that the twentieth century saw a declinein proper education. This includes Allan Bloom and Leo Strauss, along with traditionalists such asRichard Weaver.6Ibid., 255; see also 251–54; Ben Wildavsky, “Death of the Humanities,” Commentary, April 2008,68. Kronman is not speaking of conservatives simply, but all religious fundamentalism, on the leftand the right of the political spectrum. His critique is directed against religion per se since all are, heargues, intolerant in some way. It seems that, for Kronman, religious answers should be set aside, ordevalued, in the academy so that humanism may operate in freedom.