Our book club chose a politician's memoir. A member says reading it gives him legitimacy

The book is still in my bag. I nominated it because I wanted to discuss how a former politician describes decisions made in office. Now a book-club member says putting it on the reading list treats him as respectable.

She strongly opposes his politics. So do some other members who want to read it critically. One suggested cancelling the discussion; another said anyone uncomfortable could just stay home. That felt like an easy answer for the people whose choice had won.

I don't want to promise that the memoir gives a truthful or complete account. I want to examine it as an account by someone with an interest in how those years are remembered. Is there a way to keep that purpose clear while taking her objection seriously, rather than treating reading as endorsement or objection as censorship?