Had this discussion in my theories class. I was a Literature major and I read dead white men only in classes like "20th century British and Irish Poetry". I don't understand how the canon can itself be sexist, racist, colonialist, etc. because works of art are not stagnant in their meaning nor should they be. Shouldn't we be saying this about the people behind the canon? People do decide what goes into anthologies and books every year...
Some people read Mark Twain as a racist, however some people also read him as the dialogue was part of history, and furthermore make the argument that as author it was his choice for the sake of the narrative, and nothing more, because we cannot make any valid claims about true authorial intention without being fallacious. But don't get me wrong, I don't like Twain. Haha.
Shouldn't the push be to incorporate more modern books and from all over the world that in some ways succeed or parallel other works in the canon currently? I think reforming the cannon should be done to educate, to show how things are similar, yet different. To show how things have changed and how they have not changed- not to eradicate. Some want to say the same thing about religion. Just get rid of it. However there are numerous problems here. If we completely change the canon and not what it means to be part of the canon, how people who make the canon influence it, etc. then are we really changing much at all?
Despite the color of one's skin, or the predominance of people like Shakespeare and Elliot, or dead white men, to say we should throw them out because they are white and part of a bigger system of power that they were simply existing within, is strange, wrong, and a kind of censorship. Sure to focus solely on white writers is one thing, but works like Titus Andronicus should be read today because they capture elements of the human condition that sadly still can be seen around the world today.
Literature should focus on the voices to be heard, not the ones that shouldn't. The Critical dialogue is what pushes for the shoulds vs shouldn'ts and more than the cannon, the community is predominantly old white men.
In fact I think that the following would be a good response to the dilemma: Have a "canon class" where the students build the canon from their own ideas just like coming up with your own topic for a research paper, have the students come together in class and discuss these authors, have the professor just guide the conversations to keep them focused and also the connections to history. Then take a vote and create the syllabus. Make it a seminar as most seminars encourage exploration. The neat thing would be no seminar class of this type would be the same.
Also " The “stay in your lane” mentality that seems to undergird so much progressive discourse—only polyamorous green people really “get” the “polyamorous green experience,” and therefore only polyamorous greens should read and write about polyamorous greens, say—ignores our common humanity." That is basically the Private Language argument by Wittgenstein. But the reverse applies for people reading dead white males as well. Is it a problem if 90% of the required canon is like this? Yes. Is this a problem with literature or even specific works of literature, or the academic environment and the current professorial body?