Apparently he values free inquiry in academia, since there never used to be any (oh, really?) but there is now (oh, really?) but only for "real" debates and not "phony" ones, the difference to be decided on the basis of what the current groupthink might be on any particular issue. How this qualifies as free inquiry is a little difficult to grasp, but it appears that in the author's opinion free inquiry is the sort of thing to be carefully controlled by Experts, one of whom, naturally enough, is himself.
This would be embarrassing as serious intellectual discourse coming from a freshman in high school. What we have here is an Expert on education (oh, really?) propounding nonsense on a field over which he has not the slightest mastery, secure in the conviction that if "everybody" says so, it must be so, and absolutely terrified and resentful that someone might think him the overreaching tom-fool and poseur that he actually is. It may be too much to expect a PhD in Education to be able to define "standard deviation" yet dealing with what is, after all, a highly statistical field, but one would expect at least a certain facility with the English language. What we have here contains such gems as "right-wing deniers". Anyone receiving a course of instruction from this wretch is probably due a refund.
It's a Ph.D in anagrams.;)
Agree with your post.