We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Exactly correct. It is like the Church of England that was taken over by homosexuals and is now the church of homosexual politics. The activists do not aspire to these positions to further the study of them, they do it so they can remake the world one bastion at a time. It is the kiss of death to a college program for the SJW's to infiltrate it. Thankfully they suck at Science, technology, engineering and math or those programs would be destroyed too.
Why do you think it matters that they suck at those things?
I've been in meetings where SJWs are in the middle of actively tearing down the engineering department at one of the Top 2 public institutions in the nation. (The institution is in the top 2, the engineering department is good but not great, if you care about such rankings).
The planners had enough credentials, and enough victim categories, to infiltrate the institution and its departments, and are on their merry way.
How did things get this way? To answer that we have to go back almost a thousand years. Around 1100, Europe at last began to catch its breath after centuries of chaos, and once they had the luxury of curiosity they rediscovered what we call "the classics." The effect was rather as if we were visited by beings from another solar system. These earlier civilizations were so much more sophisticated that for the next several centuries the main work of European scholars, in almost every field, was to assimilate what they knew.
During this period the study of ancient texts acquired great prestige. It seemed the essence of what scholars did. As European scholarship gained momentum it became less and less important; by 1350 someone who wanted to learn about science could find better teachers than Aristotle in his own era.  But schools change slower than scholarship. In the 19th century the study of ancient texts was still the backbone of the curriculum.
The time was then ripe for the question: if the study of ancient texts is a valid field for scholarship, why not modern texts? The answer, of course, is that the original raison d'etre of classical scholarship was a kind of intellectual archaeology that does not need to be done in the case of contemporary authors. But for obvious reasons no one wanted to give that answer. The archaeological work being mostly done, it implied that those studying the classics were, if not wasting their time, at least working on problems of minor importance.
And so began the study of modern literature. There was a good deal of resistance at first. The first courses in English literature seem to have been offered by the newer colleges, particularly American ones. Dartmouth, the University of Vermont, Amherst, and University College, London taught English literature in the 1820s. But Harvard didn't have a professor of English literature until 1876, and Oxford not till 1885. (Oxford had a chair of Chinese before it had one of English.) 
Graham thinks that Aristotle could be discarded, because 'better teachers' of science had come to exist by the mid-fourteenth century. This is exactly what happened, and we now see where we have arrived. Aristotle taught us how to reason. His science may have been superseded, but that was inevitably as a consequence of the accumulation of more data. The neglect of Aristotle has gradually led to the loss of our ability to reason, via the tortuous errors of Descartes, Rousseau, Hume, Darwin Marx and so on. We have lost touch with Reality so much, that it is now considered an ancient superstition not to accept that a man with balls can be an instant 'woman' on his own say-so.
For thousands of years, Western culture defined, evaluated, and accepted certain values and aesthetic experiences as canonical.
Of course, the English language isn't thousands of years old.
Racial, sexual, and economic biases were never the primary (or secondary or tertiary) criteria by which canon-building occurred.
Apparently, the writer isn't familiar with the canon of English literature, which has often been very much concerned with racial (Twain, Shakespeare), sexual (Austen, Shakespeare), and economic (Fitzgerald, Shakespeare) biases.
IAGO: Even now, now, very now, an old black ram
Is tupping your white ewe.
LADY MACBETH: Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts! unsex me here,
And fill me from the crown to the toe top full
Of direst cruelty
worm is your only emperor for diet: we fat all
creatures else to fat us, and we fat ourselves for
maggots: your fat king and your lean beggar is but
variable service, two dishes, but to one table:
that's the end.