If you mean that politico-ethical considerations of an author as a person should be less important than the quality of their art when compiling an anthology of the best poetry, I don't think that's unreasonable.

You understand me correctly. That's exactly my point about what you are saying. That's exactly my point about what Sherman is saying. We disagree on this point.

I'm saying that the latter should taint the former. It really should, especially in this case, and enough to deny the poems representation in the anthology. I talk about it elsewhere in this thread, I'm sure you'll be able to find it under the river of mongo downvotes I'm collecting.

As for the anonymous poetry example, think of it this way. Language is context-dependent, isn't it? It changes depending on the frame. If I were to publish a poem under the name Trotsky, then the same words would carry different likely-or-possible meanings and connotations than if I were to publish it under the name Toni Morrison. The author's name, and the illusion of the author, is content in itself, and also affects other content.

For another example, take the poetry of John Hinckley Jr. His poems on face are about loneliness, alienation, madness, etc. But they are read differently, and should be read differently, knowing what he eventually did, knowing what his influences were, like idk Taxi Driver, etc., which reveal a madness and violence etc that they clearly allude to, but only clearly in retrospect after having more information. That's part of the project of analyzing authors and their biographies, for example, because it affects interpretation, it affects the meaning and content of their work retroactively. There is a relationship here, that is part of what I'm saying.

Frankly, it shouldn't even be a question whether Hudson's racial masquerading is acceptable or unacceptable, and not only was Alexie agonizing over this, he picked wrong. If needed I can defend this point but I think that would be a low point for discussion here.