Well, they are certainly TRYING. However, since science must be based on objective reality to exist, they aren't being nearly as successful. Literature and history are pretty easily de-constructed, as in the final analysis, their content is simply opinion (history ought not to be, but historians sold out to the left LONG AGO),
My wife (a scientist) had this argument with a "colleague" (an English major) who was trying to teach engineers how to write better. The English major was into "deconstruction" in a big way. She had a hard time showing how the "law of gravity" could be influenced by "gender perspective", though.
Yes, real science is/must be based on objective reality. But there is no guarantee that our society will retain the standard of living that progress based upon scientific understanding has enabled, IF society is dumb enough not to pass this knowledge down to future generations as a whole. They might not convince existing science students that the law of gravity is subject to a gender perspective. So they start redefining what science "is" and what math "is" in elementary schools. Those kids won't know any better, unless their parents teach them.
E.G. Math. Well, girls supposedly aren't as good as boys at "traditional" math. [Which as having a BS Mathematics, I find very strange to begin with.] So we "find" a kind of math that "equalizes" -- or better, empowers little girls, since they are "disadvantaged" by traditional math. This makes use of their strength of intuitive thinking. There is no longer an exact, "right" answer to a math problem. You take in all the information, and use your intuition to explain what you "feel" the answer is or should be. Of course kids taught that way will be left behind, because some people are not going to submit to nonsense. However, how many people can the nation afford to have thinking this way and being computationally illiterate? And, as voters, being trained to think emotionally and ideologically rather than logically?