The Assault on American Excellence

by Anthony T. Kronman

A New York Times Editors’ Choice

The former dean of Yale Law School argues that the feverish egalitarianism gripping college campuses today is out of place at institutions whose job is to prepare citizens to live in a vibrant democracy.

In his tenure at Yale, Anthony Kronman has watched students march across campus to protest the names of buildings and seen colleagues resign over emails about Halloween costumes. He is no stranger to recent confrontations at American universities. But where many see only the suppression of free speech, the babying of students, and the drive to bury the imperfect parts of our history, Kronman recognizes in these on-campus clashes a threat to our democracy.

As Kronman argues in The Assault on American Excellence , the founders of our nation learned over three centuries ago that in order for this country to have a robust democratic government, its citizens have to be trained to have tough skins, to make up their own minds, and to win arguments not on the basis of emotion but because their side is closer to the truth. In other words, to prepare people to choose good leaders, you need to turn them into smart fighters, people who can take hits and think clearly so they’re not manipulated by demagogues.

Kronman is the first to tie today’s campus debates back to the history of American values, drawing on luminaries like Alexis de Tocqueville and John Adams to show how these modern controversies threaten the best of our intellectual traditions. His tone is warm and optimistic, that of a humanist and a lover of the humanities who is passionate about educating students capable of living up to the demands of a thriving democracy.

Incisive and wise, The Assault on American Excellence makes the radical argument that to graduate as good citizens, college students have to be tested in a system that isn’t wholly focused on being good to them.

Genres: Politics, Nonfiction, Education, Philosophy, Psychology, Law, The United States Of America

288 pages, Hardcover

First published August 20, 2019

Reviews

[Mehrsa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Seems that the easiest book to get published these days is a long rant about how safe spaces and renaming buildings and complaining minorities are ruining everything. As if Bret Stephens and David Brookes repeated columns aren't enough, we need several full books of unintelligible ranting. This book is mostly that--the minorities are ruining everything with their feelings. But that's not totally fair--it's also a (weird) attempt to restore the Aristocratic tradition of excellence (that I guess the minorities are also coming after?)--the idea at the bulk of this tradition is that some people are better than others at being human and having big thoughts and it's ok for the University to cater to them. Fair enough, but what does the rant have to do with that? And why does Kronman not seem to picture a minority when describing the excellent aristocrat (that's a rhetorical question, obviously).

But to be really really fair, there is a nugget at the core of this book that I wholeheartedly agree with--actually I agree with most of it, but it's so littered with lazy thinking that I won't give him credit when he stumbles on obvious truths. The nugget is his analysis of Bakke--this is the supreme court case that justified affirmative action on diversity grounds. This was a terrible decision. Justice Thurgood Marshall blasted the court in a dissent (one that Kronman and I both agree was right). Affirmative ACtion was justified because of historic wrongs and the uneven playing field. The Court said it is only justified to create diversity in colleges and since then affirmative action and diversity have been a muddled mess of reasoning. Kronman would like to go back and change history--or otherwise, stop pursuing diversity because he thinks diversity takes away from excellence. I, too, believe the decision was wrong, but I think it's cynical and wrong to say that diversity is the reason for the "assault on American excellence."

[Jon · Rating 1 out of 5]

If this is what counts for critical thinking at Yale, I'm delighted to keep my Northwestern degree...

But seriously, this is a fascinatingly bad book. Even Kronman's most nuanced arguments about Bakke, building names, or memorials are weakened by fallacious reasoning and underexamined appeals to aristocracy. A lot of the arguments boil down to a "get off my lawn" response to institutional change. Sometimes Kronman mixes it up with tired strawman bits about his "facts" (often not actually facts) versus other people's "feelings" (see above). I'm not going to try to pick the book apart piece by piece, but let's just take one representative example:

It is true, as Kronman asserts, that for a person Y to declare that person X can never achieve any meaningful understanding of person Y's perspective because person X is not a "Y" is a conversation stopper (and a really long sentence). In its extreme form, it's also a declaration that true community is impossible between X and Y. So far... okay.

The solution, however, is NOT for a professor to jump into this exchange and pronounce that "No, no! Perspective is irrelevant! We must only declare things in terms of universally accessible reason." That response ignores the very real possibility that the proffered reason (being itself the product of a selective, non-universal collection of thinkers) may insufficiently account for or address the "Y" perspective. It might even ignore "Y"s altogether. And it's just possible that "Y"s matter... to "Y"s and non-"Y"s. In other words, our "universal reason" may not be sufficiently universal to advance our current needs for critical thinking and community building in our pluralistic society at our present moment. Even if you can swallow Kronman's aristocracy argument, his is an unsustainable approach to critical thinking (unless, I suppose, you really just want to cling to your aristocratic institution and keep other people off your lawn).

To be translatable into meaningful democratic engagement off-campus, the standards of reason we teach students must remain sufficiently open and challengeable to allow for the consideration and possible incorporation of "Y" perspectives. This is how communities evolve. And this is one of the many reasons why actively promoting a diverse faculty, student body, and curriculum is vital for universities as well as individuals. Yes, of course, diversity is not limited to a handful of broad categories, but if Kronman was engaging these literatures seriously he would not act as though their advocates treat them that way.

Without expanding diversity of perspective, communities become insular and, ultimately, they fail. At best, students in Kronman's aristocracy bubble are less equipped to achieve the Socratic goal, which he claims to value, of knowing what they don't know.

[Carolyn Kost · Rating 3 out of 5]

Former Dean of Yale Law School Kronman examines the ways in which excellence, freedom of speech, diversity, and our shared past [each construct with its own chapter] are under siege in American universities, as political society invades and erodes the environment and values particular to academia. He posits the purpose of university education as the refinement of students' preferences, aesthetic tastes, and general conduct. This inculcation of the aristocratic [rule of the best] ideal is imperiled by absurd egalitarian judgments that all things are relative and there are no standards by which we may assess one attitude, viewpoint, way of living, etc. as superior to another. My favorite quote is from the first chapter:

"According to Aristotle, everyone agrees that flute playing is an activity that may be performed well or badly. Can it be, he asks, that when it comes to the activity of living in general, there is not a similar standard of excellence by which to judge the performance of different human beings? Aristotle thought that the existence of such a standard is obvious.
….Could it be that there are better and worse ways of living—that there are grades of excellence in the work of being human—even if there is no single way that is demonstrably the best of all? Could it be that there is a form of education that increases a student’s chances of becoming an excellent human being, just as there are educational programs for those who want to be outstanding flute players and mechanics? And could it be that those who received an education in human excellence are, just for that reason, better equipped to play a special and needed role in our democracy despite, or rather because of its staunch rejection of [such standards]?”

What if we truly subscribed to that ideal? How would all of our pursuits be different, not merely our educational institutions? One might wish Kronman had authored a centennial revision of Thorsten Veblen's 1918 The Higher Learning in America; alas, no such luck, though he certainly shares some of its themes.

Kronman argues that the university is a special type of community with its own set of rules of engagement and speech [Chapter 2] based on the primary "duty to collaborate in a search for the truth." It should be a sanctuary removed from the baser political and social spheres, and when the values of those encroach upon the university, it "does great harm."

In addition to undermining or eradicating the quest for excellence, the "[identity] group-based understanding of diversity [Chapter 3]...has done tremendous harm to the academic culture of our colleges and universities. It has encouraged students to view themselves as victims and wrongdoers; to act as spokespersons for the racial, ethnic and other groups to which they belong; and to believe they are fatally confined in their loyalties and judgments by characteristics beyond their power to change. It has made all forms of hierarchy suspect...." Groupthink trumps individual thinking, the cornerstone of learning.

Lastly, Kronman asserts universities' role as "custodians of the past" that foster "the tolerance for ambiguity and dissonance...the best antidote to the spirit of righteous conviction" that causes blind deference "to the opinion of the group or tribe to which one belongs." Moreover, the privileging of contemporary opinions regarding morality and ethics discounts historical context and unjustly convicts our forebears for not adhering to our current judgments.

I was more or less with him through Excellence, [freedom of] Speech, and Diversity, but he lost me with the Memory chapter. I'm not sure I buy his argument favoring the retention of all laudatory memorials for historical figures, especially when so many here in the South are unquestionably the product of Jim Crow, like statues erected 50-70 years after the Civil War commemorating its heroes. While I understand his reasons for objecting to the absurdly contrived process resulting in the name change for Yale's Calhoun College (and other points), I'm not entirely convinced by them across the board. Certainly, alumni were upset by the change; that's the least of it. Granted, Davis, the Black master insisted on serving that specific college in 1973 "to face the past and fight it," an admirable perspective. It may counter academe's purpose to cave to Black students' declarations of feeling unsafe and demanding a change. Most importantly, the emotions involved in the assessment of the "primary legacy" of a historical figure and its erosion by our anachronistic moralism have little to do with logic, and it is precisely this assignation of primacy to emotions that is so problematic. Nevertheless, must all namesakes and statuary remain in perpetuity? Even Catholic schools are discarding Virgin Mary statues. It's glorious to honor computer science pioneer Grace Hopper '30 M.A., '34 Ph.D.

This is a stimulating read. The structure of Kronman's prose is delightfully logical and rather enthralling, though he does ascribe far too much significance to Yale as axis mundi and its teapot tempests. It's worth reading to exercise your gray matter and consider your own position in the longstanding war for the soul and purpose of the university, as though it were still being waged. One can hope.

[Aggrey Odera · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nostalgia is a vice most common, it appears, to old white men, and in this book, Kronman extravagantly indulges in that vice. The book is in many ways similar to Allan Bloom’s “The Closing of the American Mind”, only switching Bloom’s distaste for the revolutionary politics of the sixties that bled on till the nineties, to Kronman’s dislike for campus politics in the twenty-first century. Like Bloom, Kronman yearns for an earlier time; when the university, as a cultural institution, looked remarkably unlike what it does now.
The way we engage in discourse now, especially on university campuses, Kronman thinks, puts in jeopardy those “American” values of vigorous debate and honest truth seeking, which are key to the functioning of a healthy democracy. The university, according to Kronman, is a particular kind of place that fosters a particular kind of excellence in thought - an excellence that is stifled when ideas cannot be freely expressed. In the ideal atmosphere where the university fulfils its intended function, free speech reigns supreme, argument is had without feeling: when I say “Heil Hitler!”, don’t shut me down; debate me instead. In the ideal university, safe spaces should not be encouraged: you don’t feel comfortable talking about rape? What a coddled baby! In the ideal university atmosphere, history should not be erased: let us not take down the statues of Robert E. Lee or Cecil Rhodes; let us leave them there and discuss their significance instead; let us not yield to lazy emotionalism, but instead approach everything with “reason”. Then, and only then, can we be said to be upholding the tradition of American excellence, which is key to democracy.
There are serious debates that are being had about University politics; complex debates about issues such as negotiating no-platforming concerns with free speech concerns, mental health concerns with rigorous academic inquiry - which may demand that we sometimes say things that might be uncomfortable for some of us to hear. But Kronman assumes that these are not debates to be had - they all collapse under the overwhelming force of free speech. American excellence, it seems, is incompatible with the messy business of fighting racism; with the quest for justice for sexual assault survivors; with mental health concerns - so long as free speech is ever threatened during the undertaking of these endeavors. It seems then, that the University where excellence is not assaulted, either does not have people who experience racism, sexism, homophobia, sexual assault etc., and who feel strongly about these issues - or if it does, demands that these people not stifle free speech - which is to say, that they not have strong opinions about the strong opinions of racists, sexists, homophobes, sexual assaulters etc.
I have read another of Kronman’s books - Confessions of a born-again Pagan- and I have met him in person (he was my contract law professor), and in both his other writing as well as in person, he comes off as a deeply thoughtful and compassionate man; an incisive philosopher and a committed humanist. Those qualities are not evident in this book.

[Jasper Tran · Rating 5 out of 5]

Available at https://cdn.vanderbilt.edu/vu-wp0/wp-... (contains spoilers).

While Anthony Kronman’s The Assault on American Excellence certainly has many rich veins to mine, this Review aims to tap only those central to his observations on how academic excellence has gradually lost its reign in colleges and universities. The Introduction situates the Book among his earlier scholarship and other scholars’ work. To better understand his vantage point, Part I contextualizes the Book with Kronman’s intellectual journey and the historical-to-current views on diversity. Part II discusses the Book in detail, beginning with Kronman’s argument for the pursuit of excellence followed by his identification of the three anti-excellence movements, and critically engages the Book with arguments/counterarguments that it could have, should have, but did not cover. The Review briefly concludes with an ex ante view on the future of excellence and intellectual diversity.

[Austin Gaghadar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Physically light but dense content on what I view as important and interesting questions. I thought the author presented a coherent and well reasoned approach to the role of college in a democratic society and the ways that the current changes on campus impact this. While clearly trying to argue for a certain perspective, I did not find the rhetoric too heavy handed, reading like a series of papers advocating for a certain approach. In my opinion, the passion of the author for the subject matter enhanced the perceived importance and made it a more compelling read. One of the main weaknesses was the repetition in the points being made. The subsections within the chapters also did not always seem to isolate a specific idea. While I did not agree with all of the ideas contained in the book I appreciated the opportunity to challenge my existing viewpoint on these issues. As one who celebrates excellence there was also a lot that resonated with my existing views, including the importance of debate and active discourse as opposed to using personal experience as a silencing mechanism. I will continue to reflect on the implications that these ideas and the phenomena discussed will have on American culture and the future of American excellence.

[Ietrio · Rating 1 out of 5]

Proof that you don't have to be smart to climb the academic ladder, just servile and be ready to kiss all the right butts. And the message? The message is : get ready to die in the next war so bureaucrats like Kronman could feel excellent by proxy.

[Timothy Hall · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kronman was dean of the Yale Law School for a decade beginning in 1994. Although he is a self-described progressive, this book is a vigorous assault on the supposed value of "diversity" in higher education. He would have supported uses of affirmative action by colleges and universities to remedy past societal discrimination along lines of race, unlike the majority of Supreme Court justices in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). Nevertheless, he argues that the Supreme Court's determination that the value of educational diversity justifies race-conscious admissions policies in higher education has had a destructive effect on the life of colleges and universities. This is so, he suggests, because the emphasis on diversity undermines the commitment he believes higher education should have to a humanistic ideal of excellence in living.

[Aubrey George · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is something inside me that experiences great unease when I acknowledge the truth and wisdom contained in this book. Perhaps it is the belief in its tenets and arguments against popular belief without the ability to articulate or defend them without using the author’s words.

A brilliant work that even if not valued for its conclusion can certainly be venerated for its argumentative and persuasive prose.

QUOTES

Humans want respect, but those who seek it by merit are eclipsed by those who simply want it. The philosophers of the French Revolution propagated the doctrine of levelling, an unnatural and destructive form of equality. While every human being has equal rights, “nature assures that some possess a degree of virtue others lack, and though their rights are the same, the ‘weight’ or ‘power’ they enjoy ‘ought not’ to be.” 34

“Nature itself—a ‘voice within’—tells us that the best ought to ‘govern the world.’ But [John] Adams vehemently rejects the idea that the problem of selecting them can be solved by adopting any European form of nobility. ...There is no way of guaranteeing that ‘power,’ as distinct from ‘rights,’ will be concentrated in the right hands. But if power is broken up and dispersed, that can at least help to prevent its concentration in the wrong hands—in particular, those of the people at large who as a single collectivity constitute only a ‘mob.’ In Adam’s view, this is the principal function of America’s constitutional government, which divides one power from another and sets them against each other in a complex system of checks and balances. ...These have the effect of slowing down the processes of government; creating opportunities of deliberation and the adjustment of competing interests, and discouraging (though nothing can entirely prevent) the emergence of demagogues who, speaking in defense of the equal rights of man, would abolish distinctions of wealth and status and collect all power into their own hands, claiming to be the authentic voice of the people.” -35

[Stephen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disclaimer: The author is my son's father-in-law. I had Thanksgiving dinner with him this year. I am not sure that I would have opted on my own to read this book. However, this summer I was emailing with an uncle of the family, Tony's brother-in-law on matters of summer importance. In his rep[ly he mentioned the book and said that we should all read it and plan to have a discussion over the dinner table on T-giving. I replied back later that it sounded like a good idea and that I was game as long as we had an invite. Well, we received the invite - it's a standing invitation, but my wife and I in another life and in another city and state used to host a Memorial Day Pancake Breakfast. We issued standing invitations, and only a few people ever understood what that meant. Yes, at its largest we probably had 200 people attending, but you get the point, we were always inviting people. But I digress. So I ordered the book from my favorite independent bookstore in Middlebury. But it seemed more like a book you would read before going to bed and not out at the lake. ANd in the meantime, Emma and my son Andy visited us at the lake and the topic came up in conversation and Emma looked at me and said - "No way." I received the message loud-and-clear.
To some degree, I think that I agree with what the author wrote. I think it is a generational thing. The author is a decade older than I am, but we both grew up in the same kind of generation, as upheavaled and chaotic as the one we currently find ourselves in. Although I was too young to protest the Viet Nam War, I was certainly against it, and I think I would have had I been of age to engage in those kinds of activities. And now to a large degree, I find myself unable to protest - a disability, but perhaps if I was out there it would make an impression on people. I am not sure I agree with this idea of an aristocracy leading us and that some people are more capable, more prepared whatever, to be leaders. Is it possible that the Meritocracy is what has gotten us into this tribalism and division and the subsequent nightmare we are living through? And I do think we are ready for a female or gay president. Ain't that a hoot.

[Whitney Borup · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really appreciated the boldness of this book. I'm guessing it's hard to sympathize with professors with their tenure and mostly academically-free ways. Instead of looking for our empathy with stories of ridiculous undergraduates, this book situates its philosophy in a celebration of aristocracy. It's an idea I mostly agree with but didn't have the language for before reading this. This book gave me a lot to think about.

[Erick Romero · Rating 5 out of 5]

While at first I was a little worried this would be one of those tiresome critiques of wokeness, an analysis that is certainly still needed but also something I'm a little fed up with by now, Anthony Kronman's "The Assault on American Excellence" was less of a complaint and more of an explanation. It revealed insights that were much more profound and useful for me than the usual non-fiction I read, to the point where I looked up the author to follow more closely hereafter.

As the title suggests, Kronman's book is about the importance of excellence in our country but specifically in the universities. The move to level everything down to being the same, to be valued the same, to show that no one is more accomplished or praiseworthy than others is, in his view, destroying the culture for everyone. He breaks this phenomenon down into three areas: speech, diversity, and memory. He goes into great detail on what he means by each term, what the problems are, why it matters, and what the fix would be. Sometimes the detail might be too wordy and I have to remind myself that the author taught law at Yale.

I was leaning toward giving this work a 4 out of 5 stars, mainly due to the above-mentioned wordiness that bogged down the flow, but also because I felt one of the explanations from the author in the "memory" section wasn't fully convincing. However, the epilogue pulled things together nicely and, much more importantly, I had new ideas introduced to me. I think it's not arrogant to say that, at this point in my life, rarely do new concepts come to me from others; I think a lot about a lot of things and come up with, or reconfigure, a lot of ideas on my own. If I read something that gives me something new to chew on, it's a gift, and here Kronman gave me THREE new things. So this means it easily receives a five-out-of-five stars from me.

If you're interested, the three concepts are this:

1) In order for a healthy society to flourish, we need both "truth" AND "politics" (or what Kronman calls politics, at least). Yes, truth is what we are all striving for, but since we can never know all of it, we need to allow the bullshit of politics for people to say what they want, propose their perspectives, even attack other ideas and possibly sway people with bad ideas. It's pluralism, basically, and if we don't permit this way of life in our civilization, soon totalitarians and authoritarians will take control and dominate with their "truth" and, well, these oppressive groups are not at all open to the possibility of being wrong. Examples include the Chinese Cultural Revolution in the late 60's and early 70's or today with, yes, wokeness.

2) The idea that merit or excellence must coexist with the egalitarian nature of law. Before I thought that equality was more important that anything remotely aristocratic, but the author convinced me that we absolutely need aristocracy, meaning that in some areas of life... again, particularly the university... merit is rewarded and achievement celebrated. Even the concept that we all understand and accept that some people are just better at living life than others was a revelation for me. Being able to still have that equality of opportunity, that we are all equal before the law and politically speaking with our votes and ability to self-govern, is fine only as long as we permit and even encourage people to be their best selves. This comes with accepting that our best selves aren't all going to not only look the same, but also not be equally as valuable in society.

3) The "enlarged mentality" where we must learn to live with the tension of our past so we can learn from our mistakes. Kronman mainly uses this in his "memory" section dealing with renaming buildings and removing statues. He advocates for keeping nearly everything as is as a way to remind us that we can easily fall into the same traps again if we sanitize everything from our history to just match our modern day values. It means we will literally never learn because we simply have a binary approach to human beings, something that has never really existed but is unfortunately being taught in much of this everyone-is-equal-no-matter-what style.

I know I've not done the author a great service by my recap here, but I'm trying to make more of an effort to learn by writing, even if it's sloppy and a little chaotic. We learn most by writing, including reviewing the thoughtfully constructed words of others, so bare with me as I continue these sorts of efforts.

My conclusion, though, is that although some readers may be turned off by portions of the writing itself (I had to reread some paragraphs to understand what was being said), I highly recommend "The Assault on American Excellence."

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kronman is a member of the academic aristocracy as a former dean and current professor at Yale University, and his argument in this book is that current events are threatening that aristocracy in ways it has never been threatened before. As he concludes in the Epilogue, "It is time to rally around the ivory tower." Basically his argument is that our style of democracy has a leveling character that is welcome in the area of politics and law but unwelcome on university campuses.
Universities are supposed to identify and foster human excellence, especially through the study of the humanities. This traditional view of the role of education as something more than a vocational one, is something Kronman values and sees as under assault.

His first concern is with the growth of equity, diversity, and inclusion movements on campuses.
He argues that the Supreme Court started this trend, which threatens the academic aristocracy, with its ill-considered decision in the famous Bakke (1978) case. That case could have affirmed the use of affirmative action to admit victims of systemic prejudice and racism--which Kronman would have supported--but instead the Court plurality held that schools could not do that but that they could consider race in admissions to establish a diverse campus experience in which diverse voices would be present. This created an institutional focus on diversity for diversity's sake that Kronman thinks has led to an assault on proper aristocratic functioning of higher education.

As he sees it, being a member of a group found on campus to promote diversity becomes a sort of group trump card that people play. For example, you can't understand because you are not a member of my race, orientation, gender, or what have you. This creates a movement towards everyone looking for a victimization trump card that they can play in this way. Rather than an exchange of ideas, the campus divides up into specialities based on which victimized group you can identify yourself with.

At the same time, this focus on democratic values on campus also levels all distinction, so that the very project of the humanities--exploring how to live one's life to be a better person--is devalued since all people are equal and there are no better people, though no one denies that you can achieve greater success in such things as grades, income, sports, and the like, the idea of some people achieving more and becoming or being revealed to be superior is anathema to this democratic and essentially political force in America. It has no place in the ivory tower, he might say.

Kronman is also unhappy with the movement to tear down monuments and rename buildings on campus. These are markers of our shared history and in revealing the weaknesses and shameful actions of such historical figures, humanism is advanced as we learn from their mistakes and recognize in them our own limitations and imperfectness. Once you impose current values on history, you are in effect erasing history.

As I see it he has set himself two difficult tasks here. First, is to convince an audience that is sympathetic to the value of diversity, inclusion, and equity that these things are a problem when imported to campuses. Second, he has to convince an audience to see that campuses should be like an ivory tower in which an aristocracy of professors over students is sheltered from the tendency of democratic impulses to reject distinction and the recognition that some are superior in gifts and achievements to others. Even someone who shares his discomfort with the renaming and tearing down of history and who recognizes that the focus on equity, diversity, and inclusion on campus has become a bit of mania, might doubt that these things pose an existential threat to American universities.

As I read Kronman I found myself thinking of David Brooks' The Road to Character. Both authors seem to be struggling to find a way to live by Enlightenment values in a postmodern landscape. I sympathize with that impulse, though I'm not really ready to rally around the ivory tower--for many reasons. Still, it was an engaging discussion and I would recommend Kronman's academic style to young writers looking for a models to follow. As for the message, I'm guessing this book would be seen by anyone under 40 as evidencing a nostalgic longing for a past that they are not very interested in, a past that should be tossed into the ash heap of history along with last year's cell phones.

[thewanderingjew · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Assault on American Excellence, Anthony T. Kronman, author and narrator
Anthony Kronman is a professor at Yale who has been startled by the school’s acquiescence to activists. He believes that schools should educate minds before encouraging the students to act on issues they cannot fully understand. He understands that certain issues are triggers for some groups and might make them feel uncomfortable, but he believes that in order to educate the mind and allow the cream to rise to the top, a student must be challenged with ideas that force them to think, even if it makes them uncomfortable. In social situations, he understands the need for fairness, equality and comfort, but in the classroom, he believes it is more important to deal with controversy by studying it, rather than ignoring it or erasing it. There is a democracy of the community but an aristocracy of the mind.
Kronman cites several instances of controversy which he finds difficult to comprehend. Some concern the idea of appropriate/inappropriate Halloween costumes, another is the idea of offensive speech and/or behavior that is offensive because it triggers a memory of something the student might not have even experienced but is still uncomfortable thinking about, then there is the controversial effort to remove historic statues because something in that person’s past that is being memorialized is found to be offensive to some, while another is the removal of the term Master from the school because some students felt it is a negative trigger hearkening back to the time of slavery, even though the way in which the term is being used indicates superior achievement and not the master/slave concept. The term in the environment of Yale, had nothing to do with that shameful part of our history. The Halloween costume controversy actually caused the removal of two beloved educators who chose to leave after being attacked and is a sad result of narrow minds.
Kronman makes the case for the aristocracy of the mind, rather than the aristocracy of the social classes, by citing the thoughts of many historic authorities and philosophers, like Babbits, Holmes, DeToqueville, Mencken, Nietsche and many more, revealing their quotes, ideas and explanations. He explains how the cream should rise to the top and be rewarded in an educational environment in order to allow the best and the brightest to succeed, while also allowing those not quite so intellectually gifted the opportunity to improve and achieve good results. We are all socially equal, but we are not intellectually equal, therefore there is a value to allowing the idea of encouraging inequality in the educational environment without which we might all be content being mediocre.
The message I received from the book is that while diversity in all areas of life is to be aspired to on the campus and in the greater world, so that people from all walks of life learn to live together in peace and harmony, it is also necessary to be able to tolerate a diversity of thought so that critical thinking is the end result rather than an emotionally immature student body that cannot deal with reality and must all think alike so that success is not valued.
The author narrated his own novel. I believe that was a mistake since his voice droned on in a monotone, often sounding hoarse and without energy. Without a hard copy, one would be hard pressed to truly take in and absorb the entire book.

[Andrew · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read for people struggling to understand the controversy behind removing confederate names and statues. The drive to bury the imperfect parts of our history is dangerous. Kronman had a second row seat during the name change of Calhoun college at Yale. Kronman was the dean of the Yale Law School for a decade beginning in 1994. Kronman also goes deeper into how Universities foster excellence. The rise of student political movements are eroding excellence at higher institutions. Kronman touches on many controversies and eloquently defines his own personal believes. His tone is full of hope that a humanist can still strive for excellence.

more details are in the spoiler


Loyal to country and loyalty to being a humanist. This was an important distinction at the end of the book that could be an entire book !

Anthony Kronman has watched colleagues resign over emails about Halloween costumes.
Kronman recognizes these on-campus clashes as a threat to our democracy.

Prepare people to choose good leaders, you need to turn them into smart fighters, people who can take hits and think clearly so they’re not manipulated by demagogues.

Alexis de Tocqueville and John Adams reveal examples of intellectual traditions.

To graduate as good citizens, college students have to be tested in a system that isn’t wholly focused on being good to them.

The Author supported uses of affirmative action by colleges and universities to remedy past societal discrimination along lines of race, unlike the majority of Supreme Court justices in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). Over time, Kronman argues that the Supreme Court's Bakke decision has had a destructive effect on the life of colleges and universities. The emphasis on diversity undermines the commitment to excellence.

[Ann · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kronman seems to argue that American institutions of higher education, and other institutions as well, should not be reluctant to embrace excellence in the form of intellectual aristocracy. Some people are better at some things that others and we should applaud and encourage excellence in all forms. He traces these ideas back to several great thinkers, including John Adams, Alexis de Tocqueville, and others, and locates the root of the rejection of intellectual excellence in three current trends: suppression of free speech, the rise of diversity initiatives, and the rejection of the past. His arguments are solid, but I found his delivery to be dry and rather uninspiring, so I lost interest and only made it through the first third of the book. Many of the themes that Kronman discusses here have been better addressed in Haidt and Lukianoff’s “The Coddling of the American Mind” and Murray’s “The Madness of Crowds.”

["Dr" Kris · Rating 4 out of 5]

An older friend is missing following Dorian. One of the last things she did was send me, and my "sister" group, this book after we talked about Kochland. She even got a wise old teacher to agree to read it then lead an online chat/discussion about the book starting Friday. I have not slept well so have finished. This is a discussion book. It presents a view none of my friends will agree with totally but we can all argue over. It is an academic book so a challenge read. It offers both sides of an argument about college education. The author favors an aristocratic kind of orientation. If you are as dead set against the 1% rule then this will push you consider what they think as conservatives. Thanks EB! Please come back to us by Friday to join our discussion.

[Mel · Rating 3 out of 5]

I have read this book against a deadline so I might participate and now lead a discussion about it. This is a good book to spark discussion. The author write about extremes. He paints a divide between democracy that pursue equality as the fundamental goal versus humanism and aristocracy that respects and pursues excellence through ranking according to standards. What should be the purpose then of college and university? The author supports elitist aristocratic institutions that develop superior humanists. Both sides are presented but one is the clear desired result. Can this work? That is with Socratic conversation the author desires though you may not agree with his conclusions in the end.

[Crystal · Rating 4 out of 5]

Nonfiction>education, history, politics
Often just coming off as a long monologue or soap box for the author. I enjoyed his spiel, it is not like there is anything new being said here. I appreciated his going back in time to see how other great historical figures have viewed the purpose of higher education. The beginning has a great recap of philosophical greats. I am sorry that his beloved Yale has fallen into the SJW trance and is tearing itself down over it. I cheered him along throughout the book, but I still don't see a concise argument spelled out in the book other than "Yale got too woke." True, but doesn't need this many words to say it.

[James · Rating 3 out of 5]

When this book by former Yale Law School dean Anthony Kronman came out, it caused a little bit of a stir on Yale's campus where I work (albeit not in an academic capacity). It was several back-and-forth editorials in the student paper, the Yale Daily News, that of course made me want to read it even more than perhaps I would have otherwise!

Though I would argue that Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff's The Coddling of the American Mind is a wider-ranging and more thorough exploration of the contemporary issues of "excellence," "speech," "diversity," and "memory" (as Kronman categorizes them) in general in America, The Assault on American Excellence takes a fair shot at some concerning academic and cultural patterns and trends that have taken hold at American universities in recent years.

[David McGrogan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Seen from the perspective of 2024, this book is remarkably prescient - although, at the same time, it seems terribly outmoded, as though the argument has already been lost. I can't imagine a modern Yale student picking this book up and being persuaded by it, precisely because everything it warns about has now become monolithic and unchallengeable. In 2024, to have the views that Kronman expressed in 2019 is simply to make you a Bad Person and not worth listening to. That's the position in which we now find ourselves: not pretty.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

A provocative look at the several of the forces eroding higher education in today's America. One doesn't have to agree with everything (part of the point of the book-- academia is not the same as democracy), but this, along with The Coddling of the American Mind, is an important book for anyone who cares about learning and what's going on right now.

[N · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's hard not to agree with some of the sentiments conveyed in this book, but Kronman conveys them in such a pretentious way that he makes you hate both him, and, for agreeing with him in any capacity, yourself. So, if you wish to read a book that makes you question the extent to which you are, as you've always suspected, a turgid fool, read on, read on!

[Jennifer Kowash · Rating 3 out of 5]

The discussion this book evokes is interesting and valuable to say the least. However, the disorganization of the entire book is frustrating. I get that the author probably wanted to slow readers down to think more, but the repititive flitting around often comes across as careless

[Kevin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Appreciate his points - and agree with nearly all of them - but this book could have been shorter and more direct.

[Lan · Rating 3 out of 5]

Chapter 3 Diversity;
Chapter 4 Memory;
Epilogue

[Patti Zerbe]

A must read for anyone who has been to college or has had kids in college.

[Alli · Rating 3 out of 5]

Borrowed this a week before lockdown. Had I plowed through it the day I got it, it would have been an entirely different read. Now at the end of June 2020, the content is woefully outdated. Cringing.

[Alex O'Donnell · Rating 2 out of 5]

Read the section on freedom of speech. Skip everything else.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Well argued but I felt it was over-argued. I don’t disagree with any of the points made but they could’ve been made with much more brevity. This needed editing. Still a worthwhile read.