Texas A&M Forbids A Plato Reading In An Intro Philosophy Course
In an unprecedented decision, Texas A&M University is requiring a professor to remove readings by Plato from his philosophy course.
gettyMartin Peterson, a philosophy professor at Texas A&M University, was told this week by university administrators that he either would need to drop a discussion of race and gender issues and the writings by Plato on those topics from his introductory philosophy course or teach a different course.
The mandate comes as part of a review of course syllabi being conducted by the university as it tries to interpret and comply with a new Texas A&M Board of Regents’ policy that states that no “system academic course will advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity.”
The policy allows non-core curriculum or certain graduate courses to include instruction on race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity, if the professor has been given prior written approval by the university president after a review of the course. “Such approval may be granted in limited circumstances upon demonstration of a necessary educational purpose.”
According to the Daily Nous, a publication about the philosophy profession, the Plato excerpts that Peterson was going to assign were from the Symposium and dealt with Aristophanes’ myth about there being only two kinds of humans and Diotima’s ladder of love. The other readings were from Ethics: Theory and Contemporary Issues (10th edition) by Andrew Fiala and Barbara MacKinnon.
Peterson is not the only A&M faculty member whose syllabi are facing this kind of scrutiny. At least 200 courses in the College of Arts and Sciences “have been flagged or canceled by university leaders for gender- or race-related content as the university undertakes its review of all course syllabi,” faculty members told Inside Higher Ed.
But the jarring nature of an order to remove any material by Plato, one of the most influential philosophers of all time, from a philosophy course was almost guaranteed to spur publicity and cause controversy. Ironically, it will lead to far more discussion and debate about race and gender issues than any single course could have ever generated. The university has stirred Plato’s pot.
Kristi Sweet, the chair of the philosophy diepartment, emailed Peterson on December 19 informing him that his Philosophy 111: Contemporary Moral Problems course could not include material relating to gender ideology, race ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity.
Peterson replied, describing the submission of his syllabus as “mandatory censorship review," and adding, “Please note that my course does not 'advocate’ any ideology; I teach students how to structure and evaluate arguments commonly raised in discussions of contemporary moral issues.” He also added that “the U.S. Constitution protects my course content,” as do norms of academic freedom.
You can read the email exchanges between Peterson and his department chair here.
Peterson ultimately decided he will teach the course, scheduled to begin next week. After excising the Plato excerpt from his syllabus, he replaced it with lectures on free speech and academic freedom. “I’m thinking of using this as a case study and [to] assign some of the texts written by journalists covering the story to discuss,” he told Inside Higher Ed in a text. “I want [students] to know what is being censored.”
CEO: C-suite news, analysis, and advice for top decision makers right to your inbox.
Peterson, who is the chair of the university’s Academic Freedom Council, said he doesn’t blame Sweet. “If she believes that she is violating my academic freedom and my First Amendment rights, then she should not do that,” he said. “But I also have some sympathy for the fact that it’s her job to implement a new policy, and as long as she has that role, she probably doesn’t have much of a choice.”
Even though university officials have defended the Regents’ course review policy, which has undergone one revision already, as an attempt to ensure instructional transparency and consistency, criticism of this particular ban was sharp and swift.
Amy Reid, interim program director, Freedom to Learn, at PEN America, said, “It is absurd that a professor could be told not to teach Plato, a foundational thinker in the study of Western philosophy since the Renaissance, merely because his writings discuss questions about love, gender, and human identity. Censoring classical texts in service of political orthodoxy is antithetical to the goals of education. Universities exist to engage students in difficult inquiry and not to suppress ideas just because they make some uncomfortable. Texas A&M and its Board of Regents must rescind these chilling rules immediately and reaffirm the autonomy of faculty to teach the subjects within their expertise.”
Lindsie Rank, director of Campus Rights Advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), said in a statement: "Texas A&M now believes Plato doesn’t belong in an introductory philosophy course…This is what happens when the board of regents gives university bureaucrats veto power over academic content. The board didn’t just invite censorship, they unleashed it with immediate and predictable consequences. You don’t protect students by banning 2,400-year-old philosophy.
Should Texas A&M continue with the policy as currently written, it’s almost sure to encounter greater backlash and continuing criticism. It’s vague, it’s censorial, and it’s ripe for uneven applications. It’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.