I don't see why Wilder shouldn't be a role model. She was not personally unkind (as far as we know) and she was not a famous writer until later in life. It was difficult for women to get a decent education in those days but she persisted. A person can be a role model and sometimes use language that would now be considered quite wrong. As you say, she apologised in later life for any offence, basically saying, "I wouldn't describe people and situations in that way now".
It's a long time since I read about Shakespeare but do remember studying him at school, alongside his works, as a person whose writings reflected the Elizabethan age and here in England there were people of colour and many Jews. Shylock was written about in an unfavourably stereotypical way, Othello was a sympathetic character.
Dickens captured Victorian society and attitudes portraying the character of Fagin as a deplorable criminal, exploiter of children; there was another Jewish character in 'Our Mutual Friend' (name I can't remember atm) who was quite the opposite.
Yes I do believe prizes should be given in their names, there is so much more to their work than prejudices common in the eras in which they lived. Dickens highlighted the plight of the poor, slum conditions, cruelty towards children, and hypocrisy on many levels which far outweigh, in my opinion, any religious or racial (Grace Poole springs to mind) stereotyping.
Good night, sleep well.
PS: Rhiannon just saw your post. You said:
'Incidentally, I think ‘we don’t talk like that now but people didn’t know better then’ doesn’t really help. Politeness is meaningless without a change in attitude and how we think about others.'
Yes I agree wholeheartedly, I didn't mean that change in speech should not be preceded by a change in attitude & that happens.