"Boyden refused to take the side of First Nations activists who were concerned about the museum's lack of acknowledgement of the various genocides inflicted upon Canada's First Nations by European settlers."

Why would this issue alone define Mr. Boyden's credibility? Not everybody accepts the premise that First Nations have been subjected to genocide, at least in the modern era, and some consider the use of the term by First Nations as being in itself tantamount to cultural appropriation. Members of several groups, including Armenians and European Jews, are likely to object to the use of the term to describe anything other than culturally or racially based systematic mass murder. So, were I Boyden, I'd also be tempted to stay silent on a question addressed to me on this issue as it appears any such inquiry would likely be in the form of a non sequitur, where one has to accept the underlying premise of the questioner in order to respond in an "acceptable" fashion.