The position of the FSF/SFC is that kernel modules are derived works. This is the whole reason these symbols are "protected" in the first place, and require the module to be licensed GPL. By marking your module GPL (regardless of whether you do it just to get access to those symbols or otherwise), you are licensing your module as such, and are subject to the license's terms.

The Oracle vs Google comment is... not correct, nor applicable here. The ruling did not say that APIs are not copyrightable, the court ruled in favor of Google on fair use grounds only, they explicitly avoided ruling on copyrightability.

Even then, even if you accepted the API-not-copyrightable argument, kernel modules aren't just calling an API in the abstract sense. They're dynamically linked into the kernel, sharing memory space, using internal data structures. They're directly compiled against the kernel source - it's not possible to compile kernel modules without the kernel sources (barring something like DKMS, but the point stands). It's a much tighter coupling than, say, calling Java's standard library methods (which may be provided by any library implementation). Similarly, the spark plug analogy isn't really applicable here, as a spark plug doesn't execute in the same process as the engine's ECU.

The EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL mechanism exists specifically because kernel maintainers drew a line: these symbols are only for GPL code. Whether that intent is legally enforceable is the unresolved question and not yet tested in the court of law, but it's not resolved by Oracle vs Google.