| "but also sends a message to his students: that he doesn't whether they feel safe being there matters, " That is some very serious gaslighting. To suggest that somehow students would be 'unsafe' around writers such as him or his works, is a toxic form of rhetoric. That term - 'unsafe' - used in in an intellectual context such as it is is anti-intellectual and oppressive. There is no 'harm' in his words. Even if the publication felt it wasn't exactly perfect - they could have published it anyhow at very least on the basis of erring in the side of expression. Then people cold read it, make up their own minds, disagree, not care, whatever. We're adults, we can do that, that's the point. And FYI nobody is arguing that any real, material history should not be taught. |
This is in the context of his literature courses. There are so many literary authors that aren't white men, that arguing that he should have the right to decide to only teach works from white men (if he deems them to be the best works), does seem to me like arguing that we shouldn't teach the history of marginalized people.
If you only mean non-literary history, the history of black people and LGBTQ people are both very under-taught in United States schools. That's a real thing that some people do want to continue, and argue for. (But this seems a bit outside the topic at hand)