Articles like this seem to deliberately blur categories so as to describe large portions of academia as uncharitably as possible. "Postmodernism" has never been

Articles like this seem to deliberately blur categories so as to describe large portions of academia as uncharitably as possible. "Postmodernism" has never been a term with a consistent definition, but even given that, certain claims in this article are contradictory or outright nonsensical. "Postmodernists have tried to hijack biology, have taken over large parts of political science, almost all of anthropology, history and English," Maitra concludes, "and have proliferated self-referential journals, citation circles, non-replicable research ..." What would it even mean for English research to be "non-replicable"? In fact, the replication crisis has struck social psychology harder than any of the fields mentioned. The implication throughout is that students are passive here: activism is something that their professors talk them into. This was not at all my experience at university, and it doesn't match what I've read about many contemporary protests. I'd be curious whether it matches the experience of anyone here on HN. I'd argue that most of these students who supposedly think there is "no truth" have very specific views of what is and is not true, and that their views are violently opposed to those of the author. The last time there was intense campus protest, the issues were civil rights and the Vietnam war. No doubt, in today's climate protesters engaging on those issues would be likewise condemned as postmodernists believing in "no truth."