The whole point is that we still don't know what Lucy actually looked like, and therefore whenever we depict her we are "filling in the blanks" with our own interpretations. In the past, we didn't know whether she was likely to be covered in hair or not, but almost every depiction showed her covered.
The author of the article, who has a PhD and is the chair of a college's interdisciplinary humanities department, makes the point that when we exclusively depicted her covered in hair when we didn't know whether or not she was covered in hair, we were projecting our standards of modesty onto her. We also idealized her as a mother, as exemplifed by her depiction with protective and warm body language toward fictional children and male partners. These are aspects that various artists, researchers, and journalists projected onto a skeleton, not truths about Lucy as an individual.
When it was revealed that Lucy, in fact, was likely not covered in hair, and instead likely walked around naked and uncovered, we did not immediately revise these depictions. They disrupt the previously held projections and interfere with the narrative of Lucy as a "perfect mother" by modern standards-- not because she can't be both naked and a good mother in an absolute sense, but because these are disparate and conflicting signifiers in our modern society. In essence, it's harder to solidifiy her illustration as "the mother of all humans" to an audience of modern Westerners if she can't be depicted with "chastity and modesty", because we strongly associate those characteristics with good motherhood.
It is, therefore, a media analysis of the depictions of Lucy, it's not about Lucy herself. It's about how we project onto Lucy, and what that says about the people doing the projecting.
Of course, humans societies that are alive today are also valuable examples in the process of self reflection. But ignoring the observations made by the author and other researchers is like saying we don't need to analyze media (books, movies, TV shows) that depict society, because real society is right there!
As an education professional: what the hell, dude? It's not unfortunate that we aren't just dropping struggling students without first carefully examining why they're not succeeding.
You might be right that you can't let some students detract from the class for other students, but the solution there is advocating for better funding and more staff to be able to give every student what they need, whether they're above or below the expectation for their age.
Saying it's "unfortunate" that students don't fail (read: ruin their whole god damn lives) as often anymore is blaming our most vulnerable YOUTH for the systemic problems of our society. It's not their job to be what the school environment wants them to be, they don't even have a choice about whether or not they are there. It's our (as educators, and as tax paying and voting community members) responsibility to make sure they get the education they need to be functional members of our society.
We even have huge bodies of research to reinforce this. It's not a secret that the school environment excels at making nice workers, not critical-thinking and well-adjusted adult humans.
Take it up with the school board! Take it up with the local, state, and federal government! Take it up with the voters!