This appears to characterize Joshi as a reactionary apologist for Lovecraft. As presented, he seems to suggest that Joshi is part of the "problem".
apologist noun : a person who defends or supports something that is being criticized or attacked by other people
How does that not fit?
Whether or not he is "part of the problem" would depend, I suppose, on what one believes the problem is. Lovecraft's brand of racism? An undeservedly high reputation as a writer that (some may feel) Lovecraft enjoys? The subject actually under discussion here: the use of Lovecraft's image on a statue given out by the WFC to honor excellence?
Since much of Joshi's reputation and livelihood depends on Lovecraft's reputation as a writer, how to view what he has to say on the subject presents something of a problem. On the one hand, he is an acknowledged expert on Lovecraft and where better to seek clarity than by consulting an expert? On the other, he is hardly a disinterested party. Far from it.
As for using Butler on the statue instead, I don't think her work is sufficiently well-known, nor Butler herself a sufficiently iconic figure.
I'm with those who think the figure used for the award should be a thing rather than a person. Then no one's reputation has to come under discussion, to be attacked and defended. I am sure there would be debate about whatever design was chosen, but I think it might be less protracted and perhaps friendlier.