I'm not sure why the discussion always jumps to this extreme. The entire thread for this article is full of people jumping to a similar conclusion, which I also

I'm not sure why the discussion always jumps to this extreme. The entire thread for this article is full of people jumping to a similar conclusion, which I also think exaggerates the situation. It makes the window or the statue or whatever far more important than it really is. It's like bikeshedding, but for outrage. Firstly, the real world isn't immutable. Just because a college made a stained-glass window for someone doesn't mean they have to preserve it for all eternity. Doesn't matter who it is, it's just a piece that was commissioned once and now the owner of it doesn't value it the same way any more. Secondly, we're in an age where information is so abundant that an internet search or a trip to a library will allow you to learn as much as you care to learn about a notable person. Lecturers and professors may choose to disclaim this person's work when teaching it, such that the value of the science remains but the history of the scientist is laid bare. If we're talking about erasing people or memory-holing them, the thing to worry about isn't a commemorative decoration, but the education system itself. In that sense, a far more egregious crime is to, for example, balance out an atrocity like the Holocaust by giving equal credence to Holocaust denial. Or to attempt to ban the teaching of slavery and other unpleasant aspects of a country's history by blocking the literature in schools. In these cases, unsavoury history very much is being erased, and replaced with a version that is more 'family friendly'.