It means the sort of person who convinces themselves that it is academically proper to erase the status of women, academically proper to teach preschoolers about sex, and academically proper to argue that systems which guarantee by law the equal status of all races are actually racist. This was always a truism regarding philosophy, a field of “soft science” which is notorious for finding justifications in any sort of human endeavor from eugenics to philanthropy, generally by redefining terms and engaging in exceptionally convoluted reasoning.
For example, an infamous contributor to the massive Soviet famines of the 1930s was directly due to the top minister of agriculture having been installed on grounds of his philosophical views on how agriculture could be redefined at every level - including genetic - in adherence to Soviet principles of social equality. The result was the imposition of techniques and methods which caused massive crop failures (since as it turns out, the “capitalist, profit-driven” methods in use at the time also happened to be in line with actual production interests). But as “capitalism” needed to be driven out of agriculture, and was so ordered by people whose field of expertise didn’t even touch on agriculture, millions died.
The same was true of the National Socialists, who adopted numerous popular philosophical ideals to justify their racism and Hitler’s program for mass extermination of anyone not German (which the Nazis interpreted, as did many prominent philosophers of the day, as its own race). The ideal of “shrinking markets” was applied with an eye towards racial survival, in a very Darwinian sense, to justify wiping out the entire population of Eastern Europe so as to provide farmland for GERMAN farmers. The only reason Nazis thought non-Germans should even exist, in the (relatively) short term, was to provide for the German population until such time as they could be replaced with Germans.
Philosophy is not a “hard science” which relies on verification through experimentation. Often, the results of experimentation are discarded in the “soft sciences” because they do not meet with “consensus”, which is considered far more important in a form of academia where nothing and everything can be “proven” if it’s convoluted enough. Which is where the notion of “overeducated” people inhabiting “ivory towers” comes from.