Bowen's main argument for teaching naked is that we in the professorate need to find ways to demonstrate to students that there is an unique value to being in the classroom. So, if what we're giving them in the classroom is merely stuff that they could download to their laptops (like PowerPoint presentations) or their iPods (like straight lectures), then there's really no reason for them to pay a lot of money to attend a "real" college or university. They can get all of that material from online courses. The sorts of things that you can only get in the classroom are profound conversations and debates with classmates, or real and dynamic engagement with a real expert in the field, or exposure to questions (and answers) that might be unexpected or unusual. Those are the sorts of things that make interesting classes interesting, and they're the sorts of things that transcend the simple information-transmission model than bores the pants off so many students.
Young's article does note that some students are initially put-off by these changes, preferring instead the non-participatory model to which they've become accustomed. But those same students also admit to being bored in class, and bored by PowerPoint in particular. I never use PowerPoint in the classroom (for many of the same reasons that I harly ever use small groups), so it is some consolation to me to hear that students actually find those presentations boring. I heard a story a while back about Gayatri Spivak beginning one of her lectures, at a conference where most of the presenters had used PowerPoint, by saying: "Today, my lecture will be both pointless and powerless." I still think that's hilarious.
So, although I can't really endorse being pointless and powerless in the classroom, I can and will enthusiastically endorse getting naked. Leave the stuff that can be done outside of the classroom where it belongs... OUTSIDE of the classroom!