Academic rules of engagement

Michael Schwartz started a FB IPS thread calling for civilized academic debate on Ken Wilber. After several other posts I said this:

And there is a time to drop the pretense of civilized debate and just fight against what is wrong. Sometimes the former is a way to capitulate to the hegemonic power structure, to succumb to its premises while politely disagreeing. Which in effect doesn't change that structure one iota.

I'm thinking here specifically of the ITC debate on capitalism, which I'd like to hear more of. But Stein's opening statement makes clear we should not accept capitalism's own terms, for to do so, no matter how 'integrally' dressed, really changes nothing. It's a fight that requires strong language, and yes, even polemic, that motivates us to personal and collective action in order to change a defunct and destructive system.

Capitulating to conscious capitalism, as some integralists do, requires more than polite and respectful disagreement. We can then politely watch climate change destroy our lives and planet from an ivory tower burning to the ground. If we don't fight now we all die, and that's not a metaphor or hyperbole. This is not an 'academic' debate befitting of its rules of engagement.

I also respectfully appreciate Wilber's excellent chapter on polemic in The Essential Ken Wilber (Shambhala, 1998) starting on p. 153.