Not historically though. As they go back, most authors in English by native speakers were white and male (if not for anything else, by virtue of British and American society being majority white in those centuries, and especially the elites, universities, etc., where most of the production comes from). The big non-white immigration in the US came from the mid-late 19th century and on (and even this includes millions of Italians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Polish, Irish etc, originally also considered "non white").
And if they restrict to the latest 4-5 decades, while there's more diversity, quality wise they have not been exactly the best for literature (for reasons unrelated to the increased diversity - everybody, including white male production have arguably not been at any historical best).
I didn't say a culture. I was referring to all writers in history. The author of the article is a professor of English literature, but they don't specify a specific course that they're teaching.
Even if they're only teaching literature written in English by native speakers, they would still have a wide variety of female, non-straight, and non-white people to choose from.
> There's nothing wrong with that picking from what's available and finding out you've mostly picked white males - the injustice was that they were being the majority at their time, not in the after-the-fact picking of the best.
This is exactly the point that the writer of this article is making -- that their mostly white/straight/male selection of authors is not due to malice or bias, but rather due to history.