Honestly think her logic is kinda flawed in a rather dangerous way. While there is something to be said about coexistence, that only works if both sides agree. And with humans, there is no two sides, its more like thirty. Even if a faction is willing to make the effort, six anothers will push for further concessions, control, or even outright annihilation.
That also completely ignores that most beasts are either part of a preexisting ecosystem that would break with the inclusion of humans, or are malevolent entities designed to directly assault or defend against human encroachment. Which makes coexistence was impossible from the first step.
So the scholar's line of inquiry is shutdown by both sides. True it is a noble goal, but it would only hasten one side or the other's destruction. Even if the beasts can accommodate humans into their ecosystem, humans would fuck it up because greed, pride, or incompetence, that comes out of our ever present drive to expand control our surroundings.