I find the criticism of DC in the author's piece a little difficult to follow.
Essentially (as I understand it), what he is suggesting is that not only should DC pull the cover (which they have done), but that they should issue a contrite
mea culpa, apologising for the inappropriateness of the cover for the comic that they are selling, and state that this is the reason why it should be withdrawn. In other words, as well as winning the battle not to have the cover shown, the critics should have an acknowledgement that they've won the argument as well.
I apologise (there, I can do it
) if I've misunderstood the point the author is making, but that seems to be the tenor of the argument.
But why should DC acknowledge this? Looking at the (lengthy) debate about this online, at the risk of sounding a bit boring, I'd say that there were fairly strong arguments on both sides. (I do feel personally a great degree of sympathy for Rafael Albuquerque, who seems to have been put in a very unfortunate position.) My own view, to the limited extent that it is worth, is that a variant cover is, after all, a variant that it is not necessarily reflective of the content of the comic, and that there has been a great deal of hyperbolic kerfuffle about something the profound offensiveness of which strikes me as being, at best arguable. On the other hand, if the creative team behind the book feel that it doesn't suit and might detract from what they're trying to achieve, then it is respectful not to run it.
So far as DC are concerned, though, they've made a sensible commercial decision - they're one of the big two, they are not exactly in the vanguard of warriors against (self)-censorship, and the Bat-franchise is of huge importance to them. That's all their decision to pull the cover is - a commercial decision. I doubt they think they've done anything wrong, and I see no particularly pressing reason to require them to state that they have. The critics have got what they wanted. Isn't that enough?