Yes. In fact, from a slightly different perspective, one can easily argue that this very credentialism is a component of the control apparatus exploited by the "vested interests".
To become credentialed in a field, you must spend multiple years repeating the same things over and over, getting programmed to perceive and approach problems in compliance with the field's orthodoxy.
There is a small core of people who decide whether you will gain your credential or not. These persons generally have interests besides just "train the best new $OUR_FIELDers out there", if only because that's subjective and will take many years to play out. They're generally looking for funding, projects, publications, appointments, etc. In charge of those people is university administration, and their conflict of interest is so obvious and inherent that it's a waste of time to type it out.
So you have this big powerful apparatus that has many little gullets that can be made to respond much more favorably by pouring a little money here, a little prestige there, etc. Many of these "gullets" will balk if this is done openly, but if you add a thin layer of abstraction and ambiguity, very few people will even notice the relationship, let alone care. It really only takes a minimal amount of obfuscation to get people to jump on board with something that has direct personal benefit to offer.
As such, the perspective of intelligent outsiders who haven't gone through an elaborate niche-specific brainwashing process should be valued, not dismissed.