One of the major criticisms of the western canon is that it excludes women and people of color. much work has been done to see that it is expanded to include representative works of traditionally excluded groups. many tradition-oriented people feel that many of these works are inferior to the european male authors that get bumped out of curricula and anthologies to make room. harold bloom, for instance, thinks that is wrong. consider bloom's argument and read the following quote.

[s]he remembers as a child (as i do), paging through anthologies of poetry, in vain, looking for the names of women. surely there was some other female writer besides dickinson or sappho? maybe the countess of pembroke? how thrilling it was, back then, to find a female name, even if it was attached to a relatively uninspiring poem. it was thrilling just to see that women wrote . . room had to be made for these other voices . . (carol muske, critic and author)
do you think that certain literature should be taught and/or anthologized because it is written by a woman or underrepresented ethnic group, even if it is at the expense of a "more inspiring" author? do you think you would feel the same way if you were a different sex or color? answer in complete sentences.