Lou does not mince his words in his book, and some of the entries are priceless. Early in the book, he bemoans the neglect of critical thinking taught by an oxymoronic, “postmodern education” system. In an example he writes of the mis-use of the word, “addict” for non medical conditions – and how this mis-use of the english language ultimately leads to the wholesale creation of professions and institutions that don’t deserve to exist.
He writes:

“We speak literally of a heroin addict;
figuratively of a “television addict.” But when psychologists
ignorantly or negligently drop the diacritical quotes, and imagine that
they are really diagnosing “the disease” of television addiction, we
experience the full sociological force of the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis:
what begins by misusing language to reify putative entities that have
no existence in extra mental reality, continues by elaborating social
and professional structures that purport to diagnose, research and
treat the nonexisting condition. The surest and quickest way
to eliminate bogus “diseases” would be to eliminate those who reify
them. Teaching the reifiers critical thinking would be more
compassionate, but also much more laborious”

!!! Well, that got my attention.

And later in the book, when comparing Universities to Institutes, he writes:

“The
difference between an Institute and a University is also plain; the
latter is an incomparably more robust entity than the former. The
occidental Academy has survived the collapse of Athens, survived the
dogmas of theocracy, survived the mind-numbing absurdities of
Scholasticism, survived the enlightened nineteenth-century inclusion of
Jews, Catholics, women, andother social pariahs of the day at
University College London, and of the talented but impecunious at The
City College of New York, survived the demonic twntieth-century
exclusion by Nazism of, “Jewish Science”, survived the psychedelic
revolution of the 1960’s, and will survive the current
feminization, ethnocentrization, affirmative action, deconstruction,
admission of illiterate, innumerate, and postcultural students, and the
demonic exclusion of erudite “white” and “white-Jewish” males on the
grounds that they have caused all the “problems”of occidental
civilization (e.g., the establishment of democratic bodies-politic, the
advance of science and technology, the creation of unprecedented
economic opportunities, the doubling of life-expectancies) and that
erudition is bad-and “diversity” good – for a University.”

Quite! The book is worth the read – no doubt!