Yes: topic here is the narrowness of the new academic "civics centers" which are supposed to be more ideologically neutral and openminded than the humanities departments presently are. And look: there's nothing wrong with Straussans, "pro-America Historians" etc, but the result has been an organization which is screening out any 18 year old who doesn't *already* picture himself or herself in this way.
The civics-center leaders would surely say that, at the end of the day they're actually *MORE* philosophically open-minded than the normal academic humanities departments which gradually force everyone into the Intersectionalist ideological straightjacket, whereas the civics centers genuinely embrace a culture of debate. And probably this is right. But it doesnt matter, the outward appearance is still very important because it determines which prospective students you're drawing in. Any prospective who wants something that looks like it supports "trait openness" is going to the conventional English Department, and they won't pick up on the fact that the paradigm there is rather closeminded until theyre in Year 4, if not grad school. And if you're not getting the trait-openness students, then there's really only so much you can do with that "culture of debate."
I agree with you, the scare quotes were meant to be negative. The current batch of civic centers seems to be an employment programs for Straussians, overtly “pro-America” historians, and maybe a few isolated superstars like James Hankins. Leads to a very dogmatic tone.