The author presents some excellent arguments against the takeover of universities by the latest stage of capitalism, a capitalism on steroids known as neo-liberalism. The only problem I have with his view is that it assumes that during previous stages of capitalism, universities were ideologically free to pursue truth and that these stages represented "democracy". Hence, the takeover of neo-liberalism represented a "revolution" rather than simply a natural progression of capitalism into an advanced stage.
This is very typical of politically liberal critiques that we see presented in various media. Such a limited critique is acceptable to, and tolerated by, the ruling One Percent because it doesn't truly attack the capitalist system itself, a system that requires private ownership and control of a society's economy.
...it was the election of Margaret Thatcher in 1979 that signaled the beginning of the neo-liberal revolution that would dramatically re-shape the society we know today and establish a new “common sense”. This was a revolution that saw the financialisation of the economy, the emergence of a credit-fuelled consumer culture, and large-scale privatisations of utilities and services.Apparently the author has forgotten that in the 1950s left-wing intellectuals, artists, etc. were purged from US unions, Hollywood, government, business, and the universities. Are we to believe that the history of the British ruling class has been radically different since WWII? He needs to read this and this to refresh his memory about conditions in the US.
In this climate it was assumed that higher education should also be subjected to the purifying discipline of market competition.
