Yeah, let's wrap this up since we're traveling into the region of mere needling sideshows.
There is a debate to be had about what constitutes "merit". There is more than a justifiable suspicion that "merit" meant how a white, straight male would write, picking issues a white, straight male would pick, usually told from the perspective of a white, straight male, with all others cast in supporting roles at best. Of course, attached to this question of "merit" are huge benefits in the form of fame and money, which arguably contributes to the intensity of the fight. As the nation's "Birth Defect" besmirches and defaces everything, the very notion of literary "merit" is being rendered questionable. To remedy that, a group came out, essentially proposing to include "diversity" as one long-overlooked aspect of merit in what is supposed to be a nation's conversation about itself and its culture. White, straight males talking among themselves cannot possibly be all there is to this conversation.
At the very least, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with having that debate, to look at "merit" from more than one perspective, and to make sure students are at least aware that there's more out there than the traditional canon had to offer. Nothing whatsoever. What, eventually, once this debate will have played out, to include or exclude is for the literary profession to determine. I have not claimed to be in a position to render judgment on that issue, and would never do that. So, any needling inquiries targeting me rather than addressing the issue are just a diversionary tactics: The racism and misogyny of old that contributed to the overwhelmingly white, straight, male canon of old is being questioned. That is, unambiguously, a good thing. Decrying that effort as "racist" judges itself. So do the various self-manufactured victim cards in the form of, "they would burn down my library", or similar nonsense.
