Her argument is that it's taught badly because people aren't teaching it in the 100% approved postmodern way which means "Homer is bad because it is the foundation of traditional Western civilization which is bad because colonialism and racism silencing voices". This "intellectual" spends about half that tweet essay (lol) ranting about how we need to teach people to think critically about Homer's works while also arguing that it shouldn't be mandatory reading. Think about how little sense that makes, it's like trying to teach about the American government while saying "don't bother reading the Constitution, that's just a bunch of white people stuff".So wait, because something could be taught badly, that means it shouldn't be taught at all? What?
I mean, I agree that poor teaching can turn people off the classics. Shakespeare suffers from this a lot, in my experience. But if we shouldn't teach something because people might get the wrong idea of it, then you can argue for the removal of anything from the curriculum. School would be reduced to students just sitting there looking at a board that says "BEING MEAN IS BAD."
Then realize these sorts of people probably never read many books to begin with. Remember antifa Professor Michael "Giraffe-Neck" Isaacson, who promotes antifa/anarcho-commie shit all over his Twitter yet tells his students that they don't need to read books, even by Marx, Kropotkin, etc. Or all the fedora atheists who don't read the Bible outside of the passages where God is killing people or saying that homosexuality is a sin? Or all the Islamophiles who believe quoting the Quran or hadiths about Jews or women is Islamophobic? Their exposure to their own philosophies consists almost entirely of having read/heard what their intellectual forbears wrote and never the primary sources itself.