"inherently corrupted by patriarchal and racist power structures" is a quite strong and specific (but I'm assuming also a bit of a strawman on your part). But "extremely misaligned incentives and pretty abusive to the foot soldiers in a way that compromises personal integrity" is a fair characterization of a lot of modern academic science. Everything about the way the system is designed incentivizes
Out of curiosity, do you have a STEM PhD? How many millions of dollars in grant money have you raised? How many 100+ citation papers have you published? Are you TT @ an R1 or are you a group lead industry research lab?
I ask because I find that the people who are most excited to defend "academic science" from these sorts of structural criticisms often don't actually have much experience working within the system they are defending. People who actually work in the system know there's plenty to critique.
We should be proud of what academic science has accomplished in the last ~70 years, but not blind to how the extremely poor treatment and high pressure put on grad students and early-career professors warps incentives, creates the conditions for abusive behavior, attracts the wrong sorts of people into management positions, etc.