We've accepted the invitation to respond to Mary Ann Duffy's essay review of Out of Our Minds in order to promote continued consideration of the species of anti-intellectualism that schools help to sponsor. Although we intended the book for a U.S. audience, three of six published reviews have appeared in journals outside the United States. Two were Canadian (the other Canadian review is at the following URL: http://olam.ed.asu.edu/ epaa/v5n5.html). We suppose this trend of international reviewing might constitute unhappy evidence for our case.In any event, the Canadian reviewers liked the book and were (productively) provoked by it. In both instances, moreover, the authors were practicing classroom teachers. We wrote with these folks clearly in our mindseven if our analysis is less close-in to practice than practitioners usually prefer. As to our not providing very satisfactory solutions, about all we can do is paraphrase Simone De Beauvoir's response when criticized for writing depressing novels: It wasn't our goal (and may not be in our power) to detail solutions to these problems, but documenting them seems important nevertheless.In the three years since publication, we have seen no works that address anti-intellectualism (anti-intellectism, actually) with equal scope. The recent appearance of new reviews has heartened us somewhat. "Our" reviewers outside the U.S. have exhibited a sharp, shared feeling of passion and commitment for the issues; they have understood why we made the effort. Among U.S. readers, however, the reception has been more muted, if also favorable. We had just hoped that in our native land others might begin to wonder at the relevant issues.In the sections of the response that follows, we try both to explain the choices we made when writing the book (years ago!) and, more important, to engage the enduring substance of issues. Our rejoinders are framed as