It's boring and easy, but it's necessary if one wants to get rid of it. I don't feel like fighting the good fight myself (or even watching it happen), but I'm glad somebody out there is. Really, it's the same situation as with religion.
Exactly! While pointing out that the emperor has no clothes may be a trivially simple exercise, so long as people are willing to support the emperor, we need to keep shouting about his choice of apparel. All the more when (at least in the US) our tax dollars are going to fund his "clothes."
I assume it's a reference to profs at public universities--- though most of the profs being attacked in the linked article are at French public universities.
In the U.S. I think humanities profs are actually often net money-earners for their schools rather than net spenders of taxpayer money, though. Humanities students cost much less each to educate than science/engineering students (no labs, no real equipment, no computers, lower faculty salaries), yet pay the same tuition, which often produces a surplus: http://chronicle.com/article/The-Humanities-Really-Do/64740/
In the U.S. I think humanities profs are actually often net money-earners for their schools rather than net spenders of taxpayer money, though.
Earning money for the school and being a net tax dollar sink are not mutually exclusive. Some of the money being earned for the school may be federal student aid.
Regardless of the return on the investment in Post-Modernist Humanities Professors, I still object to the fact that my tax dollars are funding them. I mean, if I can invest in good humanities profs that have roughly the same ROI, at least my tax dollars are going to educate someone rather than fill heads with unintelligible fluff.
At publicly-funded universities in the US, tuition dollars are supplemented by tax dollars (plus endowments, grants, etc) to pay the total cost of education. This includes professor salaries. This is, of course in addition to Federal Student Aid (and loans) which are also backed by taxes.
