David Rieff’s The Dying Liberal Education (sometimes referenced in reviews alongside his recent work Desire and Fate) offers a sweeping and mournful analysis of the decline of liberal education in the United States, situating this crisis within the broader collapse of liberalism as a cultural and political consensus12. Rieff contends that the erosion of the liberal university is not the result of a conspiratorial “long march through the institutions” by radical leftists, but rather a straightforward consequence of liberalism’s waning authority and legitimacy in American society1.
He draws on the insights of thinkers like Hannah Arendt, who foresaw that the liberal project’s embrace of democratization and suspicion of authority would ultimately undermine the very foundations of education. According to Rieff, the well-intentioned drive to democratize authority—removing the traditional prerogatives of teachers and institutions—has led to a situation where education is stripped of its formative power and is increasingly subject to the shifting demands of students and the broader culture1.
Rieff is particularly critical of the rise of “wokeness” and the proliferation of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives on campuses. He argues that these movements, while often motivated by genuine moral concern, have transformed the university into a space where symbolic gestures and the politics of recognition supplant substantive engagement with material injustice2. In his view, the focus on psychological harm, trauma, and identity—what he calls “therapeutic culture weaponized as traumatic culture”—has displaced the pursuit of truth and rigorous debate that once defined liberal education2.
He further asserts that this moral and cultural shift provides a convenient alibi for elite self-interest: radical performances of virtue and the reallocation of cultural prestige have replaced any real challenge to entrenched material inequalities. Despite the rhetoric of social justice, elite college graduates continue to pursue lucrative careers in finance, law, and other high-earning professions at the same rates as previous generations1. The university, he argues, has become a luxury brand, promising not only social status and economic advancement but also a kind of secular salvation—while failing to address the deeper social and economic divides that persist outside its gates1.
Rieff is skeptical that universities can resist these broader cultural transformations, noting that reflexive acquiescence to demands for emotional comfort and safety is symptomatic of a society in “moral free fall”—and that this moral decline will inevitably lead to intellectual decline as well1. He warns that making emancipation or redress the focus of education subverts the process of learning, since consensus and moral progress should emerge from open debate and inquiry, not be presupposed as the starting point1.
Despite his criticism of the excesses of contemporary campus culture, Rieff is not a reactionary. He acknowledges the reality of historical injustice and expresses sympathy for the frustrations of marginalized groups. Yet he rejects the binary logic of systemic racism as too simplistic, arguing that it fails to account for the complexities and gradations of human experience2. His critique is marked by a kind of anguished clemency: he recognizes that most people involved in these movements believe they are doing the right thing, even as he laments the unintended consequences of their actions2.
Intellectual Depth and Moral Scrupulousness: Rieff’s analysis draws on a wide range of philosophical and sociological sources, from Arendt to Baudrillard, grounding his critique in a deep understanding of both the history and the current state of liberal education12.
Nuanced Critique: He avoids caricature and acknowledges the genuine motivations of those he critiques, including proponents of DEI and social justice movements. His sympathy for the historically excluded and his support for reparations demonstrate his commitment to social justice, even as he questions current methods2.
Insight into Symbolic Politics: Rieff’s argument that contemporary campus activism often substitutes symbolic recognition for material change is incisive and supported by observations about the career trajectories of elite graduates and the luxury branding of universities1.
Courageous and Honest: The book is described as “a rare, breathtaking instance of an exquisite moral imagination in full flight,” offering a bracing antidote to both right-wing reaction and left-wing orthodoxy2.
Pessimism and Fatalism: Some reviewers note that Rieff’s tone can verge on fatalism, as he concludes that “Fate… will have the last word, it always has.” This may limit the book’s prescriptive power or its ability to inspire constructive action2.
Limited Solutions: While Rieff is adept at diagnosing the problems facing liberal education, he offers few concrete solutions or pathways forward. His skepticism about the possibility of resisting broader cultural trends may leave readers feeling resigned rather than empowered1.
Potential Elitism: By focusing on elite institutions and their students, Rieff’s critique may overlook the diversity of experiences and challenges faced by less privileged colleges and universities. His emphasis on the failures of the liberal elite could be read as reinforcing a narrative of decline without fully engaging with efforts at reform or renewal elsewhere1.
Complexity and Accessibility: The book’s intellectual density and reliance on philosophical references may make it less accessible to general readers or those unfamiliar with the debates surrounding liberal education2.
David Rieff’s The Dying Liberal Education is a powerful, intellectually rigorous meditation on the decline of liberal education and the broader collapse of liberalism in American society. Its greatest strengths lie in its moral seriousness, nuanced critique, and willingness to grapple with uncomfortable truths. Its weaknesses stem from its pessimism, lack of concrete solutions, and potential inaccessibility. Nonetheless, it stands as a significant contribution to the ongoing debate about the future of higher education and the values that should animate it12.