In reading I am reminded of the countless examples of universities, the world round, continuing their hypocritical governance arrangements where many a fine word are given to such ideals and ethics as collegiality, faculty, students, alumni, stakeholders, community, participation, freedom, etc., but in which it is really only the accruing of capital and the rise in ranking status that matter.

If acting on such fine words gets in the way of a university's earning or reputation then the one in the way tends to lose their salary. So how, to repeat the question of Ferdia Stone-Davis (asked elsewhere: https://www.thepolicyspace.com.au/2016/25/90-punk-political-science-worldmaking-worldbreaking-and-living-on-the-edge), are we to be wild in the wings when this very act could lead to being wild in the bins?

Punk political science and punk scholarship is practicable when we are permitted/encouraged by our universities and colleagues in those positions of senior management to enact such practices or to be such scholars. Doesn't seem very punk at that point then does it?

Should we not, therefore, be first discussing how to change our institutions? To my mind, as I've written elsewhere and for the Australian context (https://arena.org.au/the-democratic-university/) it seems the only way forward for doing this is by changing the government structure of universities from hierarchical-business-type to horizontal-democratic-type.