Linking "the life of the mind" to "change in the world" doesn't make any sense. How are these related?
I think he is trying to say that those who value "the life of the mind" (i.e. liberals) also value "change in the world" (i.e. more to the liberal left).
However, as I think the article proves, this is the unquestioned mindset of the liberals in academe. This same man was shocked when I questioned his Marxist assumptions in a class we co-taught. He still seemed to believe Marxist ideas would work, but that there had to be a better mechanism than communism. But for Marxism to work, there has to be someone forcing others to do distribute their income, work where the state tells them to, etc. I mentioned the fall of the Wall, how bleak life was on the East side of the Berlin wall, but he didn't seem to get it. (The students did, however. But others of them have no conception of the lines people used to wait into buy a few ounces of meat for dinner, etc.) I have a class upcoming on Solzhenitsyn and Shostakovich and repression under Communism, so they'll get the point then. Even the liberals who have to report on Solzhenitsyn.
What I find interesting in his choice of words (written recently, after the election): "change in the world" to me denotes George Bush who is bringing radical change to the world (especially to the Muslim world). I see that it is the conservatives who value "diversity" of thought and the "life of the mind," as proved in this article.
However, I have abandoned hope of arguing with my colleague for a while. It won't go anywhere. Those mind walls are too firmly erected. Retirement....