It's arrogant how he confuses anti-intellectualism with anti-academicisim. It's dishonest to ignore somewhat sharper criticisms (is it really a worthwhile intellectual pursuit deserving of public funds to write up even more analyses of Walt Whitman?) and brand your opponents as anti-intellectual.

He also characterizes this article (http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Do-All-Faculty-Members-Real/25...), "Do All Faculty Members Really Need Private Offices", as "anti-faculty", though my reading of the article doesn't lend itself well to this interpretation. (Let's take as given the obvious joke here.) Even on the surface level of treating private offices as symbols of prestige and status, it's rather disingenuous to claim one's profession is under attack by the mere suggestion of abandoning their private offices when many if not most white collar workers don't have private offices in the first place.