am using as examples here. They make their case in fairly abstract terms, they do not criticise particular institutions or individuals, they do not use inflammatory language, and they make arguments that seem hard to refute for anyone even remotely familiar with the realities of academic life. Academic life is all about the accumulation and dissemination of knowledge. So why is it that two seemingly harmless newspaper articles seem to have transcended the boundaries of free speech? The statement of anonymity in the THE piece offers the first clue. It is worded as follows: "The author has asked not to be identified in case this further affects his career prospects." So, obviously, if one wishes to have an academic career in the UK, it may be wise not to discuss certain problems involved in this endeavour. Actually, though, the author does much to recommend himself to prospective employers. He states that he has degrees from internationally leading universities, as well as a track record of publications and funding. He also demonstrates his capacity for a trenchant analysis of organisational culture. This analysis, however, might mark him as a troublemaker. His core arguments are that established academics may neglect discussions about their students' grim employment prospects because they stand to gain from their labour and because those who have departed from academia are subsequently regarded as irrelevant failures. By making such claims openly in a widely read magazine, the author suggests that he might behave in a non-conformist manner and challenge