"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.
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.