Last month, the implementation of a hotly contested new policy at Texas A&M made waves in the news and on social media. The head of the school’s Philosophy department told an instructor teaching an introductory…
Last month, the implementation of a hotly contested new policy at Texas A&M made waves in the news and on social media. The head of the school’s Philosophy department told an instructor teaching an introductory philosophy course this semester to remove selections from the philosopher Plato, saying they included “race ideology and gender ideology.” The policy, implemented last November as an update to a previous decision in the fall, states “no system academic course will advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity,” though there are exceptions for non-core curriculum courses and graduate courses.
To ensure compliance with this policy, last week Texas A&M completed a full review of syllabi for more than 5,000 courses for the spring semester. A mere six were cancelled, totaling 0.11 percent of courses. An additional 48 were given exceptions by the university president to include their potentially controversial, existing content since it was “germane” to the subjects being taught.
Why, then, has this introductory philosophy course drawn so much attention? The course, “PHL 111: Contemporary Moral Issues,” includes two required materials: a survey text titled “Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues” and selections from Plato’s “Symposium” (totaling a mere 17 pages). The chosen selections from the “Symposium” include three speeches in praise of the Greek practice of pederasty and seemingly supportive of homosexuality. The other four speeches from the text were not included. The survey textbook includes two additional selections from Plato as well as an entire section on sexual morality. The professor teaching the course has since dramatically claimed, “Plato has been censored.”
Voices from both the Left and the Right made clear their frustration with the university’s decision. The Texas A&M Chapter of the American Association of University Professors hosted an “Aggies for Academic Freedom” rally and
on X, “Banning something–anything–by Plato in a philosophy course is idiotic.” George continued, though, “In fact, any college or university that’s serious about liberal arts education would not let students graduate without having read a significant chunk of Plato.”
We would do well to heed George’s remarks.
While, in the most literal sense, the professor teaching the course is correct that his brief selections from Plato were removed, his framing of this incident as the censoring of Plato is dishonest. The heart of the debate is about the professor’s plan to have introductory philosophy students only read an out of context sliver from the great philosopher focused heavily on an ancient homosexual practice abhorrent to many modern people. Put simply, in an act of malicious compliance, the professor in question has merely weaponized Plato.
Notably, the students in the course will have limited, if any exposure, to the heights and complexities of Plato’s struggle with the nature of the human soul or of his questioning of the ideal regime. Both are central themes to the philosopher’s work and seem worthwhile for study in a course on “Moral Issues.” Instead, the students’ experience with the philosopher will likely paint him as just a supporter of the exact gender ideology Texas A&M’s policy calls into question. Making this titan of Western philosophy, a thinker so influential that some have called the whole European philosophical tradition a footnote to his ideas, a common pawn in left-leaning critiques of conservative attempts at higher education reform is a disservice to students.
Americans have studied Plato for centuries, and, famously, many have disagreed with his conclusions. To quote John Adams writing to Thomas Jefferson, “I am very glad you have seriously read Plato,” however, he goes on to write that those texts “from which I expected most, disappointed me most.” Instead of simply using the great philosopher to score political points in our college classrooms, one hopes we will, like those before us, seriously read and grapple with Plato.
Reagan Dugan is the Director of Higher Education Initiatives at Defending Education.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the 🏢Daily Caller News Foundation.
(Featured Image Media Credit: Wikimedia Commons/Public/Quintin Soloviev)
All content created by the 🏢Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
