[Glice]

What's the difference between difficult and obscurantist? I shudder whenever anyone mentions Derrida, precisely because he's so widely misunderstood. In himself, his work is often very difficult, but that difficulty is entirely necessary, and utterly on point. If you try and re-write Derrida's points in simpler words, you just end up writing more than he did. But the minute he's dismissed as 'obscurantist' I immediately feel that whoever's saying that hasn't really given him a bash in good faith.

You're right about dishonest academics, but... well, it's your call whether or not you join them really. If you can see through a bad academic - or endemic bad academics - there's no reason you have to be a part of that. I know some astonishingly sharp (published) academics and some utter turds. I cling to the good ones, ignore the bad ones. I suppose the only problem is finding the good ones - which is where your own critical faculties come in, I suppose.