Not to disagree with your overall point, but Marcuse wrote about plurality as a poor substitute for critical thought in the 60s: "Now in recalling John Stuart

Not to disagree with your overall point, but Marcuse wrote about plurality as a poor substitute for critical thought in the 60s: "Now in recalling John Stuart Mill's passage, I drew attention to the premise hidden in this assumption: free and equal discussion can fulfill the function attributed to it only if it is rational expression and development of independent thinking, free from indoctrination, manipulation, extraneous authority. The notion of pluralism and countervailing powers is no substitute for this requirement. One might in theory construct a state in which a multitude of different pressures, interests, and authorities balance each other out and result in a truly general and rational interest. However, such a construction badly fits a society in which powers are and remain unequal and even increase their unequal weight when they run their own course. It fits even worse when the variety of pressures unifies and coagulates into an overwhelming whole, integrating the particular countervailing powers by virtue of an increasing standard of living and an increasing concentration of power." The instructor's interjections provide a look-in here, but the whole presupposition is that the students have learned and sufficiently refined the capacity for critical thought inside and outside the classroom setting.