I can see why you didn't mention anything about practical humility in the subject line of this thread.
I've never done a literature course (beyond high school English classes), but I didn't think the point of studying literature was to study only that which you love (or, in this case I think it may actually be: that which reinforces or inflates your own self image).
I don't expect to easily identify with every character, or even the main characters, in every book I read - that is part of the challenge.
Holger Syme says: "The exact opposite of Gilmour’s point is true: good teaching requires empathy — an effort to understand things, ideas, and people totally unlike you. Some of those people are your students."
And isn't this a large part of why we read, to see things differently? Well, apparently, that doesn't apply to everyone, but I did think it would apply to those that study literature beyond high school. If a teacher can't see beyond those things that instantly appeal to themselves then how are they going to help students to look beyond the obvious?
Most of the best teachers I had were ones that made learning an exploration, and they did that by making it seems as if they were exploring as well. In many subjects this requires a certain amount of acting on their behalf, as they've obviously heard most of it before, but in the study of literature that exploration should never have to end.
I guess a writer doesn't have to have empathy for others, we've all read books like that, and they have their place. But I do think that those I consider good writers do have that empathy, or, like good teachers, are good enough at acting that it does the same job.