Not at all. It's about attacks on rationality and free enquiry at a US public university. The modern tendency to use the word "politics" to mean "people disagreeing" is lazy, and allows people to avoid confronting, and play down, real problems.
You don't think those attacks on rationality and free enquiry are political?
(I don't mean in the "everything is political" sense. If everything is political, then nothing is. But I also don't mean just in the "Red v Blue" sense, either. I mean political in the sense of "our tribe's standing and prominence compared to your tribe". "Academic politics" is used in this sense.)
> You don't think those attacks on rationality and free enquiry are political?
I agree with you: they are. But that's not what we're discussing; we're discussing the fact that rationality and free enquiry are under attack in our public universities, and we're discussing one of the consequences of those politically-motivated attacks (the resignation of an academic). Just because the attacks themselves are politically motivated does not make their consequences any less worthy of attention, or appropriate to HN. Indeed, that would be worthy of attention and appropriate content for HN whatever the underlying reasons (e.g. if it were financially powerful interests silencing inconvenient voices in academia, rather than a political movement).
To take it to an extreme to make the point absolutely clear: imagine that a crazy cult of rabbit-worshippers commit some murders in the course of a rabbit-worshipping ceremony. We would not dismiss the deaths as "just rabbit cult stuff"; a serious breach of human rights has occurred and questions need to be asked about whether the public are adequately protected from the rabbit worshippers: i.e. the normal considerations of everyday life still apply, regardless of how batty the original motivations may have been.
