A recent policy change at Texas A&M University has ignited significant debate regarding academic freedom and the teaching of philosophy. The head of the Philosophy department instructed an instructor to eliminate selections from the works of the ancient philosopher Plato in an introductory course, citing concerns over “race ideology and gender ideology.” This directive aligns with a policy implemented in November 2022, which prohibits academic courses from advocating for race or gender ideology, alongside topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity.
The policy review encompassed over 5,000 syllabi for the spring semester, leading to the cancellation of only six courses, or approximately 0.11 percent. Additionally, 48 courses received exceptions from the university president, permitting the inclusion of material deemed “germane” to the subject matter.
The course under scrutiny, “PHL 111: Contemporary Moral Issues,” includes required readings from a survey text titled “Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues” and selections from Plato’s “Symposium,” which encompass just 17 pages. The selected passages feature speeches that address Greek practices, including pederasty, which many modern audiences find controversial. This selection has drawn criticism for potentially misrepresenting Plato’s broader philosophical contributions.
The instructor, expressing frustration over the removal, stated, “Plato has been censored.” This sentiment has resonated across the academic spectrum, prompting the Texas A&M Chapter of the American Association of University Professors to organize an “Aggies for Academic Freedom” rally to oppose the decision. Similarly, prominent conservative academic **Robert P. George** voiced his disapproval on social media, asserting that excluding any work by Plato from a philosophy course undermines the integrity of a liberal arts education.
While it is accurate that the professor’s selections were omitted, framing this incident as a complete censorship of Plato may overlook the complexities involved. The controversy arises from the decision to present a narrow interpretation of Plato, focusing on aspects of his work that some may find objectionable without engaging with his broader philosophical inquiries. Students may miss out on critical themes in Plato’s writings, such as his exploration of the nature of the human soul and his theories on governance, both of which are essential to understanding moral philosophy.
This situation raises important questions about the role of educational institutions in curating course content. It highlights the tension between adhering to institutional policies and fostering an environment where diverse philosophical perspectives can be examined. By limiting students’ exposure to a foundational figure like Plato, there is a risk of reducing his contributions to mere political discourse, rather than engaging with the depth of his thought.
Plato’s works have been studied for centuries, often eliciting varied interpretations and discussions. Historical figures like **John Adams** acknowledged the importance of grappling with Plato’s ideas, emphasizing that critical engagement with his texts can lead to diverse conclusions.
As the debate continues, it is crucial for educational institutions to balance adherence to policies with the imperative of nurturing critical thinking and a comprehensive understanding of philosophical discourse. The aim should be to encourage students to explore and challenge ideas, rather than limiting their engagement to selective interpretations that may reinforce existing biases.
The unfolding discussion at Texas A&M serves as a reminder of the complexities inherent in higher education, particularly regarding the teaching of subjects that involve sensitive topics. The hope is that students will have the opportunity to engage with Plato’s work in a manner that fosters intellectual growth and understanding, rather than reducing it to a tool for political agendas.
