I think my point was poorly phrased, so the replies all (understandably) missed my point, which was roughly: there are lots of "academics" whose "research" is p

I think my point was poorly phrased, so the replies all (understandably) missed my point, which was roughly: there are lots of "academics" whose "research" is purely political/ideological activism and they're eroding the public trust in the academy generally. I'm specifically thinking of the folks who push climate change denialism or basically anyone in the grievance studies departments. In modern times, activist/academics more often than not seem to be these sorts of imposters (maybe I'm biased by relatively few 'squeaky wheels' and there are lots of legit academics/activists?). Others have rightly pointed out that there have been many examples of academics who were also activists, and you're pointing out that Lessig is an academic on paper (as are the "academics" I referenced in the previous paragraph, although Lessig may be legitimate). Both of these are valid, correct observations, but they miss my point (which isn't to say that my point is good; only that it survives these observations! :) ).