That’s fair, and accurate. I would, though, offer a couple of possible caveats.
One, rather than the sixties per se, I think it was more the post-structuralist and post-modernist movement that created the restrictive environment that for a while dominated some parts of the humanities, and continues to do so in some places. To that I’d add that the academy has always been sort of like this. Prior to the sixties, there was pretty much one traditional narrative in the humanities, one dominated by a vision of the rise of the West as a concept and filtered through a very limited set of cultural and social lenses. The destruction of that archaic paradigm was long overdue; the sin was not the revolution but the Jacobin terror that co-opted it and imposed its own orthodoxy. Sadly, this has been the usual way of the academy, since the days when universities were primarily for training church officials.
The other is that changing a paradigm should be tough. It took a long, long time to shift humanities departments out of their blindness to the world around them that wasn’t occupied by affluent white European males. I’d agree that the current self-negating anti-paradigm is particularly tricky to crack, but it is being eroded nevertheless.I’d argue that unless your primary goal is actually academic employment, which is a very different thing than creating knowledge and advancing our understanding of things, there are far more opportunities today for communicating your ideas than ever before. It’s only the circumscribed arena of full-time academic work that requires wading through this particular cesspool.
I’m lucky enough to be a full professor at a small college where the faculty are expected to teach as their primary function. Whatever research or writing I do is definitely secondary to my work in the classroom or in stuff like curriculum development. One reason I am where I am is my lack of interest in departmental drama, ideological infighting, and turf wars of the sort that permeate most liberal arts departments.