This strikes me as so cynical that I'd want to see some evidence before I can take it seriously.

I think this is going to stagger you. Check out this article: it deals with the academic theorists who are actually willing to state, in print, and repeatedly, that clarity of writing is not their goal.

"On one side stand academic luminaries like University of California at Berkeley rhetorician Judith Butler and University of Pittsburgh English professor Jonathan Arac, who take their inspiration from critical theorists like Michel Foucault and Theodor Adorno. Arguing that their work has been misunderstood by journalists on the left, these radical professors distrust the demand for 'linguistic transparency,' charging that it cripples one's ability 'to think the world more radically.'"

And here's Richard Dawkins on the phenomenon:

"Suppose you are an intellectual impostor with nothing to say, but with strong ambitions to succeed in academic life, collect a coterie of reverent disciples and have students around the world anoint your pages with respectful yellow highlighter. What kind of literary style would you cultivate? Not a lucid one, surely, for clarity would expose your lack of content."

(The article goes on to cite specifics and is well worth a full read.)