That question mark should have been your first clue.
First sentence of 2nd paragraph:
"These propositions are self-evident to a large, interlocking establishment of government bureaucrats, progressive politicians, college administrators, faculty, “activists,” professionals, and journalists. Yet ..."
That should have given you inklings #2, 3, and 4. Bureaucrats do not call themselves "bureaucrats." (They call themselves "people dedicated to public service.") 'Activists' don't put scare-quotes around the word 'activists'. And if this isn't setting up a paradox, your next sentence wouldn't begin with the word "Yet"
From there on, your keen, incisive intelligence would have carried you swiftly to Heather Macdonald's well-thought-out conclusion about progressives destroying lawfulness, and denying our legacy of tolerance and justice.
Ready Readers' Rule #1: Be Alert to Context Clues.
Mrs. Don-o. Did you read the entire thread before posting? No you did not. For if you had, you would have seen additional comments by me defending my position. If you had read the thread, you would have seen arguments that would have prompted you to forego your lecture on reading. Or at least addressed those relevant points.
Rather presumptious of you to criticize others from reading. When you clearly didn’t read either.
Perhaps you ought to limit your criticism to writing. Ms. Macdonald should be made aware that there was no possible connection between her first paragraph and the rest of the article. You might think she tied the two disparate trains of thought together. But she failed.