There's one aspect to this writeup that makes me deeply uncomfortable about it, besides the obvious horrors of Epstein , everyone in his circle, eugenics, racism, sexism, etc.

The author seems intent to hammer the "illiterate" insult. Epstein definitely seemed to have some form of language-related disability, but that's not what made him (and certainly not the academics who surrounded him) a horrific person. By casting people who experience literacy related disabilities as somehow inferior, it perpetuates a similar form of social stratification as the article rallies against.

The first targets of eugenics are often people with disabilities - and linguistic ability is frequently used as a proxy of intelligence as a whole. I hope the author considers adding "disability theory" to her reading list in the future, alongside the already present feminism, postcolonial theory and queer studies.

Because it feels almost like she stopped slightly short of the problem: Non-men and non-white non-straight people are considered inferior by these people due to (supposedly) being innately less able. They are using ethnicity and gender as proxies for determining intelligence as a whole. Using the ability to read and write as the proxy is not a huge improvement on that, if at all.