Quite frankly, I do not think you got the point of my article. Having been in academia, it is as much an objective fact as the Pythagorean theorem (hyperbolic, yes) that academic philosophy is simply Western-centered in what it teaches. Simultaneously, professors and students alike act as if they are moral superiors due to their endless self-advertising campaigns of "tolerance". This is the hypocrisy I have pointed to in my article. This isn't virtue signaling at all: it is simply a fact.

If you need more proof of this bias, an entire book has been written on it. Pointing out virtue signaling amongst the pseudo-tolerant is not itself virtue-signaling: it is simply stating facts. If facts do not satisfy you, a revaluation of your epistemology is warranted. And indeed, I have in other places written about the value of other traditions of philosophy. Your criticism of my having not, not only rings of an a priori assumption on my own writing (one which is clearly untrue) but also on the value of non-Western philosophy as being of some sort of lesser value. Granted, this has not been stated outright, but there are undertones of that in your assertion you might wish to rethink.

Now, the merit of non-Western philosophy is a different story. Ought we to willy-nilly include ideas simply due to their existence? No. They must have value. But, the notion that there is not a plethora of value in the philosophy of non-Western cultures is a profound absurdity --which makes the aforementioned pseudo-tolerance of academic philosophy all the more frustrating. That, philosophers like Al-Ghazali, Avicenna, Averroes, Ibn al-Haytham, Thích Nhất Hạnh, Confucius, Laozi, and many others who are not of the Western cannon are not taught in Western univestities --especially given their influence upon Western philosophy (to the point where Descartes attributes much of his philosophical discoveries to the Middle-Eastern philosophers who were named)-- seems to be a route to creating a large educational gap amongst Western philosophers. It is mainly that (1) Western academic philosophy pretends it is virtuous and tolerant when it isn't and (2) this hypocrisy is all the more annoying when you realize the amount of great ideas from other cultures they are simply leaving out of the curriculum. I would never say "have ideas for the sake of tolerance and only tolerance", but rather, knowing as much about as many cultures as possible philosophically is intrinsically valuable in itself --especially when many of these cultures indeed do have quite valuable ideas.

And, if it helps, I would never negate the value of Western philosophy. It is extremely important to delve into its history. All that I claim is that learning more is always good.