Very thought-provoking text that was worth reading and would take even more time to discuss thoroughly. I am very curious to see how universities are going to cope worthy disruption, while I would not completely simplify their function and role in society. There is no easy answer to this, not to mention differences in cultures and job markets. For example, as a young student I appreciated practical and "mechanical" courses in order to enter the relevant job market, while later on I came to appreciate more abstract and indirect benefits that the disciplines had - even though they did not sufficiently guide completion of any specific task. Being unable to memorize most of the content on the successfully completed courses is not eventually a problem, but rather a proof that a person is capable of handling the area.

Indeed I share your worry:
"Academia has ended up being a cheerleader for the status-quo."

This happens very often. Rather than just preserving, they also enhance changes in the mainstream fashion without maintaining a marketplace for ideas. For example, we have seen that Jordan Peterson is not having the easiest time institutionally, even though his ideas are generally rational and transparent.

Furthermore, far left that is fighting against free speech is trying to establish its cultural presence and memes around Western campuses in the form of "safe spaces" and new variations of Critical theory, feminism etc. Their intellectual nature is about staying on the meta-level and maintaining a distance to certain substance debates. By this, they are also disarming potential critics of core left ideas (like socialist economics) by driving economic way of thinking into marginal. For example, in management and accounting studies I see more meta-level research about narratives and sociological structuration theory, which has very little to do with conventional economic analysis or organization theory.