Let’s Be Reasonable, Jonathan Marks. Princeton University Press (ISBN: 9780691193854) 2021.

Summary: An conservative argument for liberal education rooted in John Locke’s idea of the cultivation of reason.

“There cannot be anything so disingenuous, so misbecoming a gentleman or anyone who pretends to be a rational creature, as not to yield to plain reason and the conviction of clear arguments.”

–John Locke, Some Thoughts Concerning Education

The argument Jonathan Marks makes in this book may be summarized by this quote. Marks believes that this is at the heart of a true liberal education. Furthermore, if liberal education is to be saved, it must be about teaching students to reason, to be reasonable. It is not about social justice placemats, “complex thinking” or education for citizenship.. As a conservative arguing for this form of liberal education, he believes these are progressive substitutes for the central mission of a university: to teach students to reason and to be formed by yielding to plain reason. Contrary to other conservatives, he is not ready to give up and torch the whole thing.

In the first chapter, he argues that students should be taught to think and reason at any campus. Marks cites both his own experience at Midwest colleges and the unique experience of Earl Shorris. Shorris founded the Clemente Center. Instead of elite college students, he works with the homeless, former convicts, and others on the margins. He believes teaching things like philosophy, logic, poetry, and American history are the road out of poverty. Not only have they found all these students capable. Both he and Shorris are convinced that learning to be reasonable best equips them for work and for citizenship.

Then he addresses the progressive, left-leaning character of the campus. He argues this is real but also makes the case that he has not needed to compromise his conservative convictions. Rather, he describes what I believe is the work of a good professor. He works with his students on fundamental questions of justice, not believing it to be his work to break down their resistance to critical race theory. Marks exposes students to a debate between Jonathan Chait and Ta Nehisi Coates on race in America. He argues, against both radicals of the left and the right, that this kind of education is not only possible but crucial to the mission of higher education.

But what is wrong with other aims of education? Why not teach for citizenship? Why not help students engage complex thinking? He argues that educating for citizenship may just deepen our partisan divides. He admits that some systems really are complex. However,he argues that complexity can make smart people stupid, particularly in instances requiring moral clarity.

Chapter four discusses the work of shaping reasonable students. He is optimistic about students, recognizing differences in this generation. However he doesn’t think them worse or better. Not only so, he believes teaching them to be reasonable provides a robust basis for free speech. They don’t need to cancel those with whom they disagree. Reason loves a good argument.

Finally, Marks engages a case study on the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel due to their actions against Palestinians). This chapter is even more relevant than it was at time of publication. He argues that the BDS movement (as well as its detractors) have often thrown reasoned argument, and hence, the university’s mission to the wind. Too often, academic associations have followed in lockstep, affirming the politically correct. Marks argues against trying to shut down one side or the other. He also draws the line at attacks on students. He argues for what professors do best: teaching. And he relates the example of team teaching with a colleague from a differing point of view a discussion of My Promised Land.

I suspect readers of this review will have different takes on Marks argument. I found it telling that he identifies with David French, a conservative who has, of late taken more hits from the right than the left. His argument against burning down (at least figuratively) our higher ed institutions is one conservatives need to heed. Likewise, I applaud his challenge to those who are fear-mongers toward the left. If anything, it seems the current moment has changed the power dynamic, opening the door to reasonable engagement.

Finally, I appreciate his call to teach students to reason and to be open to reason. I think of Stanley Fish’s Save the World on Your Own Time and his challenges to professors of “do your job” (reviewed at https://bobonbooks.com/2013/11/27/review-save-the-world-on-your-own-time/). I sense Marks would be fine with students who would differ from his conservative views if they had good reasons to do so. He would have done his job.