This BBC article reports that "Harvard University has removed the binding of human skin from a 19th Century book kept in its library." They claim that they did this "due to the ethically fraught nature of the book's origins and subsequent history." WTF!

The University stated that "the human remains will be given a respectful disposition that seeks to restore dignity to the woman whose skin was used".

Museums and Libraries have a long history of not treating human remains with this overblown degree of dignity: many museums have exhibits of human remains (the desiccated remains of Ötzi, Egyptian mummies, etc. - The British Museum, for example, holds approximately 6,000 human remains), so why does this human skin warrant special treatment?

It is not as if the use of human skin had no ethical point in this case. The doctor who provided the skin to the book's author, a friend, wrote "A book about the human soul deserved to have a human covering."

So what exactly is the "ethically fraught nature of the book's origins and subsequent history"? It sounds more like the University being afraid of a backlash from the woke brigade, in case they deciding to be offended on behalf of a the woman whose skin was used.

Basically, this is a case of re-fabricating historical evidence. I don't want my history to be rewritten to bring it inline with modern sensibilities. How will we ever learn from history if it is constantly being sanitised?