Interesting piece although I don't think they represent the point of view of the agitators fairly, for example the author writes: " you ask supporters, they will tell you the cost does not matter so much, because this is about creating an ideal world. Of course the professor should be fired—how dare she stand against the minority student organizations? Of course it’s okay that the Yelp reviews were published—she should never have written them. Of course names should be changed if they hint at or honor the wrong ideology. What does preserving history matter if history is racist? "

What does honouring someone who is extremely pro-slavery even for their time have to do with preserving history? That history still exists whether they have a building named after them or not. And I don't think you will honestly find many people who believe that the ends justify the means no matter what, although you will of course find some people who believe anything. So I think the "ideal world" bit is also somewhat a strawman and a mischaracterisation of people who are anti-racist or whatever.

I do however agree that a lot of this stuff doesn't really help those who need it most. The rich kids paying a 2% wealth tax funnelled into social welfare and education for the working class would do more, as would having Yale include more working and lower-middle class student. But it's easy for me to say as a white guy that having many buildings named after pro-slavery politicians is not really doing any harm. Maybe we should ask those who would be more effected.