Yes, indeed! An excellent article by Luke Brunning. My only quibble with it is with this:
If members of the ‘rigor and clarity’ brigade have influence within an academic department it is hard to see how cultures can change. Belligerent or plain aggressive behavior is justified in terms of ‘informality’ or conceptions of what ‘good thinking’ requires. In speaking of his conduct, for example, McGinn emphasized that he was “a philosopher trying to teach a budding philosopher important logical distinctions.” Many think that some ideas justify ‘forceful’ modes of presentation.
I think it’s vital to realise that one can distinguish concern for clarity and rigour from being an arsehole. The author is right: such concern is used as an excuse for appalling behaviour. But condemning “the clarity and rigour brigade”, seems to me to look a lot like accepting that such behaviour is simply what comes along with caring about clarity and rigour. (Thanks, C!)