Not being familiar with individuals involved or the authors they seem to favour, I do not feel very comfortable commenting. But I would like to point out that re-reading 'burned'/ dubious/forgotten/expulsed.... authors is a rather common practice. Take the postion of Carl Schmitt in Agamben's work --or in Chantal Mouffe's. Claiming that such return to questionable authors is not a stunt is both true and false: in the best cases it surfaces questions that couldn't be posed otherwise. But even then, it certainly participates in the search for something 'new' and distinctive to say and the symbolic profits to reap from the acquired intellectual position. It just seems that the persons involved here aren't very good at it.