I've read the book. While he doesn't define radical, it's clear the author means two things: * desires fundamental change in society's institutions * desires

I've read the book. While he doesn't define radical, it's clear the author means two things: * desires fundamental change in society's institutions * desires participatory, bottom-up institutions; rather than elitist ones. (This condition excludes right-wing radicals.) The idea is that professions don't exist in a vacuum; they fulfill goals in society's context. In particular, professionals are different from other workers in that ideology is important. So, the system doesn't particularly care what restaurant dishwashers think, as they have little workplace freedom; but teachers and lawyers have much more latitude in their jobs. For instance, we don't have economics teachers helping students design their own economics systems, since econ is a crucial part of status quo morality. Instead, they have to teach a (not too critical view of a) narrow subset of them: capitalist ideologies for the most part, and the more rebellious are channeled into top-down forms of marxism. Chomsky, mentioned in the book's preface (might've been the first chapter), discusses further constraints of educational system: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNK67M8hkw http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktNK67M8hkw