I attended a meeting of people associated with groups like heterodox academy, FIRE and other organizations who describe themselves as contrarian thinkers committed to open inquiry and university reform. My impression was that they largely consider universities healthy institutions requiring modest changes. A revised mission statement, a tweak in a policy, or a university president who echoes a talking point they like is treated as if that is all that is needed. There was little willingness to consider that the problems may be much deeper. The people presenting themselves as reformers seem unwilling to consider how fundamentally broken these institutions have become. Interestingly, some of the people who spoke most often about civil discourse raised their voices and became flustered in reference to discussion suggesting that universities might require much larger structural changes. The commitment to open inquiry seemed to apply only within boundaries they had defined. Their heterodoxy had developed its own orthodoxy. These groups may criticize universities, but they remain deeply invested in their legitimacy. They propose limited or trivial changes while leaving the same leadership structures, incentives, bureaucracies, and concentrations of power intact.