No, Kathy...it's a mix of the two. I agree with you that there are too many "lay" people who proceed to act like experts and know-it-alls on topics that they haven't researched, or of which they've barely scratched the surface. On the other hand...

The "academic elitism" I'm referring to is when scholars -- although having completed a large quantity of research and analyses, much of it valid -- proceed to inject their own biases and prejudices into their work...or, more commonly, the conclusions (and accompanying social commentary) that they draw from that work. This undermines the validity of their actual research, because they try to frame themselves as pundits and "intellectual saviors" on top of the (often-valid) evidence they've presented. The evidence should speak for itself.

They position themselves as infallible due to their credentials per se...and they're usually closed off to any introspection or critical thought, regardless of who poses it to them (but they're especially hostile to dissenting perspectives brought in from those outside of the academic community). This, of course, isn't characteristic of ALL academic minds out there...but it does illustrate a very toxic subset of them, who, unfortunately -- just like the radicals from so many other groups -- seek to position themselves as the loudest voices in the room.