The article reads like a parody, but I suppose it was genuine. Interesting that online, a lot of the comments are scathing about the lack of comprehension of the book. My memory is that Karloff's version in the film, played it for sympathy, and that was in the 30s, I think.
The other weird thing is that the headline suggests that a professor thinks that the monster would be protected by human rights act, but if you read down, it's the opposite! Is this a wind-up?
