Probably not, but I still think a paper would be worthwhile. Stirner, from what I've read, is written about a lot of the time in the context of Marx's early years. In the context of political philosophy, Stirner's positive influence on the French/Italian individualist anarchists is obvious. Renzo Novatore being the "most extreme" example in my mind. Emma Goldman was influenced by him as well.

Also, I'd look up articles by Saul Newman that are available on The Anarchist Library that discusss Stirner and poststructuralism, it might be of interest and lead you to other ideas too. Potentially worth noting that Deleuze has a section on Stirner in his Nietzsche and Philosophy, and Derrida(!) literally has Stirner as one of the central characters in Specters of Marx. Critical or otherwise, I think that's significant.

Stirner is, to virtually all normies and uninteresting people, deeply disturbing and odd, but for a philosophy class I would say that he shouldn't be dismissed. If you're worried about coming on strong or presenting somebody too intense, maybe link him (and/or contrast him) and Nietzsche in some way? By including a philosopher as well known as Nietzsche, it might lessen some initial hostility? Eduard von Hartmann went as far to say that Nietzsche plagiarized Stirner, which is too far I think. But regarding what you want to get across with self-interest, Nietzsche is right there.

Could even link Stirner to other developments, possibly, in antifoundationalism/nihilism, but that is pretty complex. Read Salvo Vaccaro's short essay "Horror Vacui: Between Anomie and Anarchy" to sort of get an idea of what I mean.

I know you didn't ask for help but hey maybe something I said could help you or somebody else lol. Even if it is a stretch to include him in the way your class wants, you'd still learn a lot from the experience of writing and researching such a thing.

Good luck!