This Essay Examines Rorty's Classification Of Derrida As A 'Private Ironist' Whose Work As Philosophy Or Literature Has No Public Utility But Rather Fosters Private Forms Of Self-Creation. Against Rorty's Reading Of Derrida, I Follow Derrida's Self-Description Of His Own Project As An "Enduring And Constant Interest Towards That Writing Which Is Called Literature." If, As Derrida Argues, The History Of Literature Cannot Be Separated From The History Of Democracy; Then Literature Constitutes An Act Of Education For It Gains Its Political Impetus From Democratic Rights, Including Freedom Of Speech. At The Same Time Literature In Its Modern Sense Develops In The Late Seventeenth Century And Only Becomes Institutionalised In The Modern Research University Literature Supersedes Philosophy As The Unifying Discipline, Responsible For Bildung And The Development Of Cultural Self-Definition In Terms Of A National Literature. The Essay Concludes, Following J. Hillas Miller (2002), By Raising The Question Of The End Of Literature And Its Implications For Democracy And Education. If, As Miller (2002) Argues "The End Of Literature Is At Hand", What Does This Mean For The Modern University, For Higher Education And, Indeed, For Democracy?