Here. An excerpt:

[T]he report highlights several problematic themes we saw across the disciplines—we summarize them as ways in which scholarly standards of knowledge creation and dissemination are being subordinated to political goals and values. The themes are:

1. scholarship being redefined to serve political ends or disciplines adopting political missions rather than knowledge-based missions;
2. fields that treat some answers as settled, or some findings as forbidden, or some topics as unacceptable to analyze such that we start to get censorship or ostracization for some otherwise fine work;
3. the postmodernist or relativist rejection of objectivity and a knowable reality (more than acknowledging challenges to objectivity or the knowable reality and trying to confront our limitations, but rejecting such efforts as undesirable or impossible);
4. bad (incoherent, unintelligible) writing in the style of some twentieth-century French philosophers who (and whose style) became influential across the humanities and social sciences over the last several decades.

It was on #3 that the Report, unnecessarily, overclaimed, even though it’s clearly true that some scholars treat skepticism about objectivity as licensing careless or overtly politicized scholarship. 1, 2 and 4 all have clear instantiations across the humanities and humanistic social sciences.