OK, go ahead and point out where they - Heying and Weinstein - were wrong on this subject. There are sure to be some things they missed or some claims which did not pan out but on the whole they were far more right than the push-fed drivel served by most official institutions, government and corporate media.

I'd say she has some sensible things to say where it concerns redefining the concept of a university although she also - in my not so humble opinion - approaches the subject from a utopian standpoint stemming from the concept of the Evergreen State College as imagined by her and (seemingly to a lesser extent) Brett Weinstein. The "new university" as she imagines it would quickly fall prey to the next iteration of critical theorists intent on fomenting revolution just like Evergreen State College was taken over.

As I see it the real problem lies with the concept of ideology - or the lack of it. The critical theory inspired "faculty yahoos" (Heying's words) who took over the faculty and spread a thick layer of "woke" over everything did so because they were - and are - driven by an ideology as surely as Scientologists or Jehovah's witnesses are driven by one, the former just leave out the concept of a supernatural being and replace it with prophets searching for some ephemeral "truth". While they do not have a supernatural being on top they do have a concept of an "adversary" like most other religions, this being the WEIRD [1] world in which they grew up. Whether driven by their image of a god or one pushed by revolutionary pamphlets, both groups have a strong drive to push their ideologies as far as they can go in as many places as they can. When universities were driven by their own ideology - usually in the form of the Christian religion [2] - they had a defence against other ideologies intent on taking over as the dominant factor but when they moved away from these they left themselves open for invasion by competing ideologies.

What then is the solution? Should universities return to their religious foundations to once again become resilient against attacks from invading ideologies? Some would loudly call for this but I don't see this as a good solution for a number of reasons. The first reason is that religion and rationality don't mix all that well while the scientific method depends on rationality to function. The second is that the Christian religion itself is vulnerable to takeover by competing ideologies and has in some cases already been taken over, viz. Liberation theology [3] which is an amalgamation of Catholicism and Marxism.

What, then, could guard institutes of learning and dissemination of knowledge from being invaded by these types of intellectual parasites without this defence wholly taking over the institutes? To me this is an open question waiting for a good answer. Until a good one is found and implemented it is probably a good idea for these institutions to take a step back and pick up some of the tenets of their own lost ideologies lest they be taken over entirely and with that, lost. Realise that this problem is mostly if not wholly confined to "the west", e.g. Chinese and Russian universities will continue on their own paths while their western counterparts get mired into the modern version of the search for how many angels can find a place to stand on a pinhead.

[1] https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/WEIRD

[2] e.g. Harvard (named after a Christian minister) and Yale (originally Puritan, started by clergymen) and Princeton (originally Presbyterian). Princeton’s crest still says “Dei sub numine viget” which is Latin for “Under God she flourishes.” In the UK Oxford University was established by various religious orders. Likewise, Cambridge University was established in 1209 by Christian leaders. Saint Andrews, Scotland’s oldest university, was founded principally for the teaching and study of theology.

[3] https://www.academia.edu/38221258/Liberation_Theology_A_Crit...