The CLU group at MIT made a concerted effort to address some of the issues of software reliability. It was developed in the 70's, long after teletypes and punch cards. I understand that MIT does not offer an accredited computer science program. I fully agree, all we need is another champion of excellence rivalling the public teachers' unions. In most endeavours, creativity, originality, and excellence is stomped on by some actual or de-facto regulatory or union body.
Certification undoubtedly brings problems - but so does absence of certification.
The criticisms he makes would apply, mutatis mutandis, to certifying medical practitioners and lawyers, yet many societies have decided that such certification is desirable. On balance, I believe that some limited certification is desirable, for staff who hold key positions of responsibility on projects which have significance for society. Even so, having to come up with such a test would certainly create a lot of discussion, much of it worthwhile. The second point is, I think, more easily dealt with. And certainly no one would contend that the fact the a person is certified means that their designs are error free.