Inclusive or exclusive?

I've long hated "lite" versions of books for younger people, and Reader's Digest-style abridged versions for those with no time to read a text but who still want to be able to give their two cents about it in a social situation.

I also know that every translation is a kind of rewriting, with the added effect of "generational retranslation" (the "classics" are retranslated regularly to adapt the translation to the times), but we expect to read something not precisely like the original, it's a translation after all (if you never thought about this before, sorry to burst your bubble; when you read a translated text, you read two - or more- authors voices, the original author and their translator, both styles, era, and biases carried into the translated text).
However, this discussion regarding the rewriting of Roald Dahl is (pun intended) another story.
This is literature, not functional text, like an ad or a user's guide, or an information leaflet.
This is an original, the source, being changed, creating in fact a new text, a new source.

I get the intention and the need for being inclusive in texts written now, but why change the original written in another time and another social context? Are we going to 'virtue wash' all of Literature now?
Why not let the biases show and add context instead? Let the reader do the work of switching codes? Use the biases of the original as an opportunity to discuss the evolution of society, "that was like that then, how do you feel it should be if it was written now?" in a classroom or at home?
Why not let the kid reading it come up with their own version?

Last week my son (12) was given a grammar exercise from a very old book. In it, was the word 'neger' (Dutch for 'niger'). Clearly, the school should invest in something more (d/r)ecent, it's not literature though, it's a functional text, it could be changed.
An interesting thing happened: the whole class went up in arms, they said it was not right and that they would speak with the teacher the next day. Which they did. It opened an important conversation about language and responsible choice of words, and how society changed. Sure, it would have been more productive for the purpose of a grammar exercise to not have that word there, but it was and they dealt with it.

There are luckily plenty of new stories, new authors, new fiction worlds, and fictional characters every one of us individually can relate to, there is no need to rewrite a book, especially if it's not done by the author himself.
Such a misguided decision however based on good intentions, treating the reader as incapable of critical thinking.
No wonder as a teacher I get so many teens in my classes unable to reason on their own and asking for everything pre-chewed all the time.