I agree on article's premise of amorality of universities and culture being a private occupation.

From:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303650204579374740405172228?mod=djemITP_h

The question, in other words, isn't whether society will benefit from its educated population having a substantive familiarity with Jane Austen's novels or the Peloponnesian War but whether universities in their present state—philosophically amoral, awash with bogus and ever-multiplying subdisciplines—can be trusted to meet that goal....

... Professors of the humanities are so determined to defend their positions as the guardians of their turf (what I'm calling "turf" used to be called a canon) that they forget they are its servants...

...As the possessor of an expensive doctoral degree in English from an ancient university, I admit with regret my suspicion that, even taking into account Ms. Small's analysis, the "humanities" have only a very limited place in a modern higher-education curriculum. For those wishing to "read shrewdly and write well" or to attain "more complexly valuable" experiences, there are museums and opera houses. And of course books.