I agree with the second point of the OP article myself...
The other option, and the one that I favor, is that we develop a different standard that can be equally applied to all historical figures. Rather than canonize our heroes on one hand, or demonize them on the other, we can humanize them. We begin to see them as real people, not caricatures, and we strive to understand and appreciate them as such. We do not hide our faces from the darker elements of their personalities. We do not justify their sins or rationalize them. We discuss them, openly and honestly. And we don't look to turn them into cartoon villains, either. We see them as men — nothing more or less than that.
If they achieved great things, if they managed feats that few could manage, if they altered the course of human history, then we honor those accomplishments and perhaps even build statues in remembrance. We don't erase anyone from the history books just because they had personal flaws — even very serious flaws. But perhaps we add another page or two. We keep the monuments because the monuments are part of our history and culture, but we keep in mind that the person commemorated by the monument was just that — a person. And that is how we think of them and remember them.
If this is where our reassessment of our historical heroes ultimately leads, I think it will be a positive change. We will finally be remembering and studying history like adults, not children. And it is through that more nuanced lens that we can, I think, continue to honor Martin Luther King Jr., despite the terrible evil he may have done. But he does not get to be an exception. If we extend that grace to MLK and his legacy, then we must extend it equally to all of our historical heroes. He is not a special case. He was a man just like them, and just as flawed. And that's the point.