Are there blockages within the university to its own self-criticism? The conditions necessary for realizing the ideal also prevent its full realization.
If there is an ideal of free critical examination, then there must be conversation. So there must be at least turn-taking conventions and agreements about what counts as a move in the conversation. These have to be recognized; they cannot be in total flux, though they can change rapidly if participants approve or at least can become aware of the changes.
What counts as a move in a critical conversation, then, forms conventions about what methods of criticism and argument will count as moves. Even if they are to be reflectively examined, they have to be specified first. There must be a background making the conversation possible, even if that background is under discussion. The total process and total context is never laid out before a purified eye.
Methods harden and create kingdoms. But total fluidity would not be a conversation, nor anything we mortals could live. Besides, if it flowed without sediment, what would be the purpose of critical dialogue for the world outside the self-regarding academy?
For all this, I keep suggesting linkage. We might consider, also, the opposite strategy.