Yes, humanities academia is severely flawed, not only in the ways that the author describes but also in the prevalence of pseudo-intellectual quackery in literature studies, cultural studies and areas of social sciences, philosophy, etc.
The newspaper appears to have forgotten to qualify the title to make clear that they were not talking about all academia.
A lot of biomedical science is also barely worth of the name science as it's not reproducible. And I'm sure you could find the same in physics and math too. But it's way easier to look at the humanities, not being able to understand the language used due to not having the required background and go "clearly it's worthless because I, someone with a degree in a completely different field, cannot understand it". And then endlessly point at the Sokal affaire.
But at least one time a nonsense mathematical paper, written by a computer, was accepted for publication. So clearly mathematics is a flawed, worthless field worthy only of derision, right? And a few nonsense computer science papers have also been accepted, so clearly also a worthless field.
A couple of points: specialized language in science is needed because science deals with things like genes, particles, and mathematical constructs that we have no words for in normal language. This often means that papers in, say, biology, are not only not understandable to chemists, but even to other fields of biology studying different things. This really isn't in the case in the humanities, which deal with the human experience we experience in daily life. There often the point is to sound as complicated as possible to hide the fact that nothing much is being said.
The "Sokal Text" affair tends to overwhelm Sokal's bigger accomplishment, the book "Fashionable Nonsense" (with Jean Bricmont). There he shows how famous scholars like Lacan and Deleuze threw random scientific terms into their works in contexts where nothing scientific is being said as a way to sound "deep".
The reproducibility problem in science is real, but oftentimes people confuse reproducibility (i.e. I give concentration X of compound Y to mice of strain Z, and 50% develop cancer within a month and you do the same and get a similar result) with failure of generalization (You change the concentration or mouse strain and get a different result and write a paper saying I'm wrong).
The newspaper appears to have forgotten to qualify the title to make clear that they were not talking about all academia.