Take off the table the idea that this is an empirically sound and responsible argument (it's not). Instead, let's focus on where this way of talking about universities comes from and who it serves, based on recent historical precedent.
A Thread . . . 1/10
"Universities" are not one thing (there are over 4,500 of them in the U.S.). Most of what they do doesn't fall into "liberal" or "conservative" stereotypes. Such framing is a typically hyperbolic and un-serious way to discuss the pros and cons of higher ed today. 2/10
The targets are the intentional weakening of any social scientific progress through their call to go back to "more traditional" forms of education.
When you can delegitimize the disciplines at their source that directly refute your ideologies, you win.
That is what the right is doing.
I'm just annoyed by the focus on STEM as if all the US needs to crank out are techies and stock brokers. The rest of us should just learn a vocation so we can keep their streets clean, serve them drinks and make sure transportation runs on time.
Also, a Harvard grad responding to a Harvard-driven media cycle?
As you say, universities are not all one thing. (And Harvard has its own particular breed of nihilism.)