This piece puts academics on a special pedestal (which doesn't exist), asserts that any deviation from that pedestal is anti-democratic, and chastises academics who aren't on it.

I couldn't read more than part way through before I gave up.

> Unfortunately, some academics believe they have a right – or even a duty – to use their privileged position to shape society in the right way.

So, only those w/o a privileged position have that right?

Bill Gates, step aside. You're too privileged to have charities.

> They join organisations and campaign systematically for specific laws, policies, and political candidates.

Aka, the fundamental right to petition the government.

> They tell their students who to vote for

That's wrong. It's an abuse of power. I hope it's against university policies, reported, and punished.

> and help them organise protest marches.

Which is part of human rights, so long as it doesn't hinder required job duties.

> They launch boycotts of companies and countries they disapprove of.

Perfectly reasonable. Eg, as university staff they surely should have some say over where the university spends its money.

Consider that when the local astronomy department organizes a monthly star party, to help interest local people in astronomy - that's also activism. Ditto for urging the city to switch the streetlights to use light sources which are easier for their telescopes to filter out.

Is there anything wrong with that? No!

So, which activism is legitimate, and which is not?

> Academics are not perfect seekers after truth. They just have better methods and answers than anyone else.

That doesn't follow. Non-academics are also part of the "truth machine", and may have better methods and answers than academics. Some examples: investigative reporter, private detective, and industrial researcher.

> If you reject what relevant academic experts claim about something like GM crop safety then the burden of proof is on you to justify why you think you know better.

Doesn't that also hold for an investigative reporter, etc.?

I'm not aware of a general special privilege afforded only to academics and not to other experts. Well, except perhaps for being called "Professor."

> Would you bet with the overwhelming consensus of the thousands of specialized scientists whose work is aggregated into the IPCC reports? Or would you go with the next best alternative: some consultant hired by Exon to talk up this year’s snowstorms on Fox News?

That's a false dichotomy and a piece of misdirection.

Many of those specialized scientists are not academics.

There are academics who reject anthropomorphic global warming.

Note that the author implies that an academic author whose work is aggregated into the IPCC report should never be on Fox News, because that would be activism. That of course allows a bias in reporting by only letting non-experts and liars be free to speak.

> They substitute righteousness for genuine expertise,

What?! That's an assertion, and unjustified by anything up to that point.

Is it really impossible for any academic to speak out to change things without substituting expertise for righteousness?

No!

> The first problem is that academic activists have overstepped their proper role as trusted advisers to society.

What?! Where in the academic job description does it say "trusted adviser to society"? What percentage of an academic pay comes from advising society? If someone hasn't done enough advising, do they face reprimand?

No.

> When academics attempt to lead rather than merely inform the wider society they don’t merely contradict the ideal of valuational equality at the heart of democracy.

That's 100% BS. Democracy requires that anyone, including academics, may petition government and even try to lead those changes.