Just like we don't have Asianas and Asianos, and we can simply say Asians. It makes less sense to add an s to Latin because Latins refers to something completely different already.
Language is constantly changing. As long as references aren't derogatory and have linguistic purpose (either due to being academically useful to be precise, concise or general, or because they're useful in colloquial speak and new words create a sense of identity), I don't see the big issue. We obviously speak very differently from 50, 100 or 200 years ago, and I'm glad for it for the most part. Not sure why we're so resistant to this particular change.
Removing acronyms because they're racist is obviously silly. But simplifying language is not. Instead of calling the Arts Department 'VAPA' (after Visual and Performing Arts) it's now simply called the 'Arts Department'. That means it should be more easily understood, and more accessible by students or parents who're not privy to navigating school systems to get their kids the best outcomes. We consistently see that certain parents are able to get their kids in the right programs, while other parents are not, and some of that relates to cultural capital which has been well studied. Acronyms probably play an extremely minor role in this cultural capital, but I don't see it as a bad move per se. (calling it racist, is)
Those were two of the key examples the article started with to explain how bad things have gotten, before jumping in how we got to this ostensibly miserable place.
There's some good stuff in the article - particularly around some hypocritical corporate wokeness in the 2nd half of the article - but mostly it comes across as very partisan, completely unwilling to assess the other sides' argument in good faith, and written to convince you of a particular viewpoint. Doesn't seem to fit into what I'm used to from the Economist.