I would expect most historians to conclude this regardless of evidence. I don't trust academia on matters of political correctness.

You are welcome to mistrust academia, but it doesn't mean you can dismiss the evidence with simply saying you mistrust academia. Peer review is peer review, in all cases and contexts.

Imagine a non-Asian history grad student tells you that he has found evidence that FDR had based his internment policy on credible evidence, and this grad student asks you if political correctness would make it difficult for him to get a job if he publishes a paper on this topic. What would you tell him?

I would tell him he has a great shot, as he would then gain a great deal of attention if he actually had credible evidence and countered the previous evidence convincingly.

EDIT: Now how much have you updated based on my response, to both questions? Do you consider evidence to be evidence? Do you consider my credibility as an academic historian to be evidence? If so, how much have you updated? If you have not updated, I would urge you to reconsider your level or rationality.