That's the title of an op-ed article in the New York Times last weekend. Here's a brief excerpt.
At small liberal-arts colleges, big state schools and Ivies alike, protesters are defenestrating presidents and deans, occupying quads, and demanding wholesale social and academic change.
. . .
But the activists’ many critics, conservative and liberal, need a clearer sense of what these students are reacting against.
The protesters at Yale and Missouri and a longer list of schools stand accused of being spoiled, silly, self-dramatizing — and many of them are. But they’re also dealing with a university system that’s genuinely corrupt, and that’s long relied on rote appeals to the activists’ own left-wing pieties to cloak its utter lack of higher purpose.
. . .
The protesters may be obnoxious enemies of free debate ... but they aren’t wrong to smell the rot around them. And they’re vindicated every time they push and an administrator caves: It’s proof that they have a monopoly on moral spine, and that any small-l liberal alternative is simply hollow.
There's more at the link. Recommended reading.
I found myself several times nodding in agreement as I read the article. It seems to me that too many universities have been taken over by the 'hippie generation' of the 1960's, who believed in drugs, free love and flower power. They've lost their intellectual rigor, their focus on education as their goal. Instead they've become self-sustaining moonbat colonies, existing only to ensure the financial security of faculty members who couldn't hold down a job in any enterprise where they were required to actually produce something of importance, or contribute to corporate profits by their endeavors. There are honorable exceptions, of course, but far too many academic institutions appear to have lost their way.
I don't know what the answer might be. It's easy to demand a clean sweep, kicking out anyone and everyone who lacks academic rigor and intellectual honesty . . . but where will we find worthwhile, desirable faculty to replace the worthless and undesirable? Such people are thin on the ground, particularly because many of them abandoned higher studies when they realized they'd be force-fed with liberal/progressive propaganda for years in their quest for a doctorate, and had no guarantee that they'd actually be awarded their degree in such a politically hostile environment. Instead, they went out into the world and made a living the hard way. Why would such people want to give up what they've earned through their own efforts, and descend into the cesspit that comprises a large part of academia today?
Perhaps the answer might be to recruit those who've made a success of their lives, and then retired. If they could be persuaded to teach for a few hours each day - even each week - and back up their lessons with examples from the lives they've led, that might be a good start. However, we'd have to exclude most politicians and bureaucrats right from the start. Let's recruit only those who've genuinely produced something, and thereby contributed economically and in meaningful terms to society. Leeches on that society should not be allowed to apply.