There is a lot of stuff going on in the literature portion of #edutwitter at the moment. The evergreen debate about the canon is raging at the moment.

This debate is interesting because it generally feels like the debate is not actually about the canon, but about morality.

The anti-canon side doesn't really seem interested in the books (many seem to be ignorant of the contents of the books in the canon).
They are interested in morality as they define it, and the canon is immoral for its many "isms" (mainly racism).

What is frustrating about this is that the canon is actually racially diverse. The problem isn't with the canon, it is with the selected books.
And, many in the anti-canon crown push much to far into the good goal of using relevant books which limits our students' horizons.

We should instead expand our students' horizons.
The pro-canon side isn't particularly interested in the morality of the books or their authors. It is interested in teaching great literature and on giving students access to their ideas, expanding their horizons.

The canon is a good thing because it helps us identify good literature that has stood the test of time. The canon isn't perfect & it does have fuzzy boundaries, that is actually a strength.
We shouldn't be married to the canon as is, but we should use it a lot (not exclusively)

Finally, the idea of a canon is absolutely inevitable.
If you just want the canon eliminated, another will pop up in its place. That's just how humans work. If you don't like the one as currently constructed, promote books that you think belong. https://teacherfulton.wordpress.com/2020/02/07/the-literary-canon-who-makes-the-cut/