This article presents the author's response to D.G. Mulcahy's "Energizing Liberal Education" which compellingly contends that the long-term viability of liberal education depends upon both methodological and curricular diversification aimed at the "many sided development" of the student. Professor Mulcahy thoughtfully espouses both the cultivation of intellect eloquently championed by Cardinal Newman and a pedagogically holistic approach to the student that speaks to her "emotional, moral and spiritual formation." As undeniably admirable as Professor Mulcahy's vision may be, the author suggests two important impediments to its realization, the first being a question of practice, the second, of principle. He challenges Professor Mulcahy's vision of liberal education's reform on grounds more fundamental than mere fiscal practicality. He stresses that Professor Mulcahy's paper draws laudable attention to the contentious relationship between the "what" of curriculum and the "how" of pedagogy but in that exercise Professor Mulcahy neglects the relationship between these two interrogatives and the primordial "why" of liberal education.