Texas A&M University is at the center of a heated debate following its decision to exclude selections from the philosopher Plato in an introductory philosophy course. The university’s Philosophy department instructed the instructor of “PHL 111: Contemporary Moral Issues” to remove these texts, citing concerns over “race ideology and gender ideology.” This policy, enacted last November and recently reaffirmed through a review of over 5,000 syllabi, aims to prevent the advocacy of race or gender ideologies in core academic courses, although exceptions exist for certain non-core and graduate courses.
The controversy intensified when it was revealed that the course included selections from Plato’s “Symposium,” which features discussions on themes of love and sexuality, including pederasty. The course’s textbook, “Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues,” includes additional selections from Plato alongside a broader section on sexual morality. Critics argue that the removal of these texts limits students’ exposure to the complexities of Plato’s philosophy, which addresses profound questions about the human condition and the ideal society.
Reagan Dugan, Director of Higher Education Initiatives at Defending Education, highlighted that while the course materials were indeed edited, framing the incident as a simple case of censorship misrepresents the broader issues at play. Dugan noted the professor’s approach, which emphasizes a narrow interpretation of Plato’s work, risks reducing the philosopher’s contributions to a single controversial viewpoint that may not reflect his entire oeuvre.
Voices from across the political spectrum have expressed frustration with the university’s stance. The Texas A&M Chapter of the American Association of University Professors organized a rally titled “Aggies for Academic Freedom,” condemning the decision to limit the teaching of Plato. Conservative academic Robert P. George also criticized the ban, arguing that eliminating any work by Plato in a philosophy class is a serious misstep for higher education.
The uproar raises questions about the nature of academic freedom and the potential for ideological influence in university curricula. By limiting access to a foundational figure in Western philosophy, critics assert that Texas A&M may inadvertently diminish the educational experience of its students, who are expected to engage with complex moral and philosophical issues.
In the context of ongoing discussions about race, gender, and academic freedom, this situation underscores the challenge of balancing institutional policies with the principles of liberal education. As Dugan points out, engaging with Plato’s texts involves grappling with difficult ideas and fostering critical thinking, rather than using them as tools for political agendas.
The implications of Texas A&M’s policy extend beyond this single course, touching on broader themes about the role of education in society. Ensuring that students receive a well-rounded education that includes diverse perspectives is essential for fostering informed and engaged citizens. As the debate unfolds, it remains crucial for educational institutions to navigate these complexities thoughtfully, allowing for robust discussions that encourage students to confront the ideas that have shaped philosophical thought for centuries.
