The thrust of the article is basically true, that you cannot have publicity seeking organizations like think tanks  in your university without inevitably bringing the core values of academia into conflict with the accepted 'rules' of PR.  

How do you teach academics used to standards of collegiality and academic distance, where respect is assumed, where stances are not assumed to be personal, where no topic or stance is off limits for discussion, about PR? That certain topics and stances are toxic in the public eye, or are guaranteed to invite negative response? Like Ignatieff, Potter found out the hard way that academics and PR professionals approach topics  using two completely different frameworks, with different standards and priorities.

Where I diverge from the author is that he seems to put the onus of prudence on an author like Potter, not the school. McGill hired him specifically to be risky, in their own words. Don't hire a gunslinger if you don't want someone shot.