You might chuckle, but the first time I even heard the name was when I looked up original PEN story and then her profile so all you heard from me was a genuine reaction to what I believe is being presented to me without additional pre-conceived notions.
Some issues are more interesting than others ( to me anyway ), but I will start by saying something else. In a sense, she is not really saying anything new. The subject has been relatively well studied thanks partially to US focus on WW2 and its role in it. So a lot of her stuff[1][2] is not much to complain about as it is very, very generic fluff that most college students should be able to regurgitate if they read anything beyond "The Prince".
That is not to say that there is nothing in those interviews[1. 7:54 ] that is not objectionable. For one thing, and it is interesting that this particular -- lets call it -- perspective comes from academics ( almost too common once you start hearing the refrain often enough ).
Said perspective is summarized by phrase "the myth of national greatness'. You can say a lot about US and likely not be wrong, but calling world superpower national greatness a myth may be a little.. lets say.. inaccurate; skewed if I felt charitable. And she is not talking about now. If this is the opening, I have some problem accepting her analysis as 'acceptable' if I can't even trust her basic grasp of historical fact as solid. And she is a highly credentialed historian, which puts into question more than just her, but people who decided she can present her ideas as solid gold ( and that happens to include academia and media ). But the issue is not even that.. the issue is whether this the kind of demoralization ( "US was never great. It is a myth." ) the Naval Academy needs.
'Criminal mismanagement of the pandemic' [1. 9:34] suggesting heavy political bent that may go a little beyond her 'fascism expert' title assigned by MSNBC. Say what you want about Trump, but criminality of the pandemic management is arguably about the least criminal thing he could be reasonably accused of. Frankly, just by saying this she kinda limits her credibility and marks herself as a partisan. And here again I argue that Naval Academy being drawn into political wars is a bad, bad idea.
So that is my opening monologue. I would be curious to see if we can turn it into dialogue.
You haven't expounded on the clues/issues you found in Ruth's interviews though; I'm still pretty curious to hear them.