But that kinda begs the question: if those institutions can't be objective, since objective knowledge doesn't exist, why criticize them for not being objective, since objectivity is not possible?
Or are you saying that we should be criticizing them for
claiming to be objective? If so, what should they be aiming for? It seems that pure subjectvity is a really wierd attitude in general: for example, you go to a heart surgeon, to get surgery, because you'll die if you don't, and he says "well there is no way to know if these procedures I learned in medical school are objective, so I'll just experiment, screw around and hope you'll come out better." Or a civil engineer who says "well, I don't know if math and physics are objective, so I'll ignore them and just check the security measures any way I want to."
I think you would agree these are really weird attitudes to have towards knowledge, when your life depends on it. So what about our institutions, what should they be doing, teaching, etc. Should the courts decide things in a subjective fashion? "I like you, you commited a murder, so I'll let you off the hook, I don't like you, you'll go to jail for smoking pot because my decision is arbitrary!". Isn't the whole point of our civil institutions to treat people fairly? What happens when the law becomes subjective? Or when the courts do? Also, when it comes to education, I'm not saying that teachers should teach their opinions as facts, or not be aware of biases they may have, the role of education is also to teach people to think critically....but not to incessantly question things that have enough proof, like say, intelligent design being taught as equal to evolution.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not denying there are subjective aspects to being human, lol. I'm not saying we should deny that, repress it, or anything like that, but to say there is no objective knowledge possible is wrong. After all, if the statement "no objective truth/knowledge exists" is true, it invalidates itself!