I was talking to another exjw yesterday and he said that his brother who is just exiting was confronted by his in laws who said the new understanding was that the one who was cursed was not cursed but another one of the son's was.
The Society has taught for years that "Cursed be Canaan" refers to Canaan alone and not to the descendents of Ham in general. It would be strange if they change it back to Ham, but otherwise there is no other son of Ham mentioned in the passage and "Cursed be Canaan" really doesn't allow any other reference. The story in its present form concerns the subjugation of the Canaanites to the Israelites.