Texas A&M Removes Plato from Introductory Philosophy Class

New "gender ideology" rule has predictable results

After a student posted a viral video of an argument with a Texas A&M instructor about the content of an English class, Texas politicians went ballistic. Soon the instructor was suspended and the university president was fired. Last month, the university regents adopted a policy banning courses that "advocate race or gender ideology" and requiring university approval for any exemptions for materials that serve "a necessary educational purpose."

And thus we arrive at the first academic semester after the donnybrook and with the new policy in place. The results are not terribly surprising, though some are already complaining about "malicious compliance" (best defined as following the rule faithfully but in ways that expose the rule as badly drafted or just plain dumb).

Brian Leiter has the details (including the syllabus and the university correspondence) of Texas A&M philosophy professor Martin Peterson, who was to teach his usual introductory class on "Contemporary Moral Issues" this spring. His syllabus includes two days on "race and gender ideology." He emphasizes in his email to the university that he does not "advocate" for any position in the class, and it is worth noting that the chapter of the text he assigns for that section is actually titled "Equality and Discrimination" and includes excerpts from authors like Iris Marion Young and Kwame Anthony Appiah. For good measure, he also included additional excerpts from Plato's Symposium in that section of the class.

The department chair reported to him that the "College leadership team" had decided that the section, including the Plato readings, would have to be excised from the class. If Peterson did not do so, he would be reassigned to teach a different class. Censoring Plato was probably not exactly what the regents had in mind (though Victorianism does seem to be making a comeback in some circles), but such a result was all too predictable when viral videos and political backlash determine the boundaries of what can be taught in university classrooms and risk-averse administrators are charged with making sure that no professor bumps into those boundaries.

There'll be plenty of material for a second edition of You Can't Teach That! at least.

Comments

[John F. Carr]

"the section, including the Plato readings, would have to be excised from the class"

One of Mayor Mamdani's first acts was to revoke all non-emergency executive orders from late in the Adams administration. A couple of the executive orders related to Israel. So that was all anybody talked about, Mamdani revokes pro-Israel executive order. Complaining about censoring Plato is in the same vein. Who knows if the Plato readings standing alone would survive. They were not alone.

[Bubba Jones]

Right. The lecture wasn't about Plato. It was about using Plato to support the arguments of other people.

I have no opinion on the merits of a syllabus I haven't read, but from what is presented, it's not a censorship of Plato.

[Longtobefree]

Get a grip, Keith. Are you real or is it AI?

"Contemporary Moral Issues" is not philosophy.

"excerpts from authors like Iris Marion Young and Kwame Anthony Appiah. For good measure, he also included additional excerpts from Plato's Symposium in that section of the class."

So not censoring Plato, objecting to several authors.

Just for the record, the sky is not falling.

[ReaderY]

Morals have been considered a core part of philosophy since at least…Plato.

Moreover, if you had actually read him, you’d realize that Plato had some ideas on philosophy of gender that might still be considered radical by contemporary standards. As I recall, in the Penguin edition of the Symposium I read way back, the preface contained an extensive apology for the (then) shocking moral ideas that Plato discussed, including his idea that homosexual love is a purer and morally better kind of love than heterosexual love.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

I think Plato was referring specifically to erotic relations between older men and younger men.

I suspect there was a physical element involved, since Socrates was praised for sharing a bed with the handsome politician Alcibades without doing anything.

[Drewski]

"'Contemporary Moral Issues' is not philosophy."

*extended snorting noises*

[David Nieporent]

"Contemporary Moral Issues" is not philosophy.

If MAGA didn't have anti-intellectualism they wouldn't have any intellectualism at all.

[Lee Moore]

"contemporary moral issues" certainly could be philosophy - it would depend on the course content.

It might be more accurate to say that to teach moral philosophy, you do not need to teach about moral questions which are particularly "contemporary" as opposed to "ancient" or "eternal" - and if you choose to do so it will be particularly difficult to do so without putting your thumb on the scale.

So, for example, it would be interesting to know whether Prof Peterson includes a slot on contemporary Islamic opinion on the proper role of women in society - which would probably get the class thinking out of its box more effectively than anything routine modern gender theorists, or Plato, has to say.

In short, whether Prof Peterson has crafted an excellent course that will stimulate the synapses of his class to think more clearly about moral philosophy, or whether he is simply yanking the Texas Legislature's chains by sailing as close to the wind as he can, we cannot tell without further details. It would be good to know what he was teaching in this class before the Texas Legislature put its oar in.

If I was a Texas A&M administrator, I'd be inclined to say - why not try a different contemporary moral issue this year ? How about "whether and when you have a moral obligation to obey the law ? When did you last cover that, Martin ? "

[santamonica811]

and the instructor would be entitled to say (and SHOULD say), in response, "Go pound sand. But thanks for the suggestion. If you want a class in 'Moral Obligation to follow the law' [which sounds like an interesting subject]' then go get a graduate degree, and come teach that class.

My dad was a philosophy professor, and taught a Philosophy of the Holocaust class for about 20 years. He taught it because the subject interested him, it engaged the students...and if an outsider told me to think about teaching a class that was interesting to that outsider, well, my dad was a sweetheart, so he would have responded graciously.

I taught before law school; my sister is tenured at McGill, in Montreal. Students often chime in, "Hey, X would be a really interesting subject for an entire class." Sometimes they're interesting ideas. Sometimes they are not. Of course.

I'd place your own 3rd person's advice up there with the students' suggestions: Always good to get feedback, and to be open to advice and suggestions. But other than that, I'll leave the educational/instructional decisions in the hands of the instructors.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"and the instructor would be entitled to say (and SHOULD say), in response, "Go pound sand. But thanks for the suggestion. If you want a class in 'Moral Obligation to follow the law' [which sounds like an interesting subject]' then go get a graduate degree, and come teach that class."

This is a two-way street. If the instructor wants to be the sole arbiter of what he teaches, he can set up a soapbox in a public park, or open up his own university. But if he wants to teach at a public university, he'll teach what the public wants him to teach or make do with the level of discretion that the public allows him.

[windycityattorney]

Oh please. "The public" is doing a lot of work here, ya think? "He will teach what the public wants him to teach." Hahahahaha

Oh great thoughtful and wise citizens of Texas; please vote on what the Philosophy professor at A&M teaches in this year's introductory class! Maybe they will rename the course: classy mclassface.

Instead of Plato, this year we will have: Kid Rock and Ted Nugent debate the merits of drinking and shooting a rifle vs drinking and shooting a pistol. Discuss amongst yourselves.

[Lee Moore]

I see that my suggestion of a topic for Prof Peterson to teach this year has sailed right past you.

[Lee Moore]

As TIP suggests that’s a perfectly reasonable approach in your own university, which is how Socrates did his thing. But once you have an institution set up which pays you a wage, advertises for students for you to teach, provides you with a room in which to teach, along with light and power, you’re no longer Socrates.

It’s up to the university how long a leash you’re on, and there’s a case for it to be a long leash if you’re an experienced and well respected teacher, but leash there still is.

And if you work for the government, the government holds the leash. Feel free to vote for a different government. Feel free to switch to any other institution that will take you and follow their rules instead.

[bernard11]

It might be more accurate to say that to teach moral philosophy, you do not need to teach about moral questions which are particularly "contemporary" as opposed to "ancient" or "eternal"

OTOH, it might do more to "stimulate the synapses of his class" to present more contemporary issues that they have some familiarity with.

[Lee Moore]

It might, but then it might not. Students might get bogged down insisting on the positions they believe in, and not seeing the contrary view, precisely because their logic is clogged up with the particulars of the case.

That is why we often make analogies which have the same logical structure as the point at issue but different content.

[Alkali]

Typical left wing indoctrination. Why not focus on the dialogues where Socrates asks, "Do you even lift, bro?"

[santamonica811]

heh

[Bored Lawyer]

From the description, it does not sound like they are "censoring Plato." They are censoring a class that includes a few excerpts from Plato.

Does the same school have a course in Greek Philosophers that includes Plato (and, I assume others like Aristotle)? Yes. A quick review of the Texas A&M Course catalog reveals this course:

PHIL 410 Classical Philosophy
Credits 3. 3 Lecture Hours. Major philosophers from 600 B.C. to the end of the third century A.D. including the Pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Hellenistic and Roman philosophy and the Neo-Platonists. Prerequisite: Junior or senior classification or approval of instructor.

So looks like Plato is not being censored.

[Sarcastr0]

https://x.com/TAMU_AAUP/status/2008633467324555682

"You may mitigate your course content to remove modules on race ideology and gender ideology, and the Plato readings that may include these."

Sure looks like Plato is being censored.

[Bubba Jones]

These specific readings are merely collateral damage in a larger clusterfuck.

I'd probably say "fuck it" and teach the PHIL 482.

PHIL 482 Ethics and Engineering
Credits 3. 2 Lecture Hours. 2 Lab Hours. Development of techniques of moral analysis and their application to ethical problems encountered by engineers, such as professional employee rights and whistle blowing; environmental issues; ethical aspects of safety, risk and liability and conflicts of interest; emphasis on developing the capacity for independent ethical analysis of real and hypothetical cases. Prerequisite: Junior classification.

lulz

[Rabbscuttle]

The professor in question literally wrote the book on ethics in engineering
https://global.oup.com/academic/product/ethics-for-engineers-9780197798041?cc=us&lang=en&

lulz

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Sure looks like Plato is being censored."

It sounds like the University is choosing not to teach some writings of Plato in some contexts, as Universities are entitled to do. I would certainly expect a university to limit the amount of Plato that could be taught during Algebra class, for example.

If the professor wants a job teaching Plato in those contexts, he can find a job at a university that's willing to hire him to teach it.

[CJColucci]

Wait until the powers-that-be find out what Plato has to say. For now, he flies under the radar unless you draw the goobers' attention to it.

[CJColucci]

Bug or feature?

[ReaderY]

I think the department chair is likely correct here. I don’t know the exact content of the syllabus. But a number of Plato’s writings could, if evaluated neutrally and without putting a thumb on the scale to exempt writings considered familar or classics, be fairly described as “race or gender ideology” under a very reasonable definition of that phrase.

“Ideology is literally “words about ideas.” And Plato definitely had ideas about gender and wrote about them.

[Baseballhead]

God forbid a university should teach either words or ideas, much less words ABOUT ideas.

[Roger S]

The professor says he does not teach any race gender ideology. He probably does, and the college probably has good reasons not to trust the professors on this subject.

[Bowman]

Are we sure that they knew they were banning Plato and instead thought they were banning Playdough?

[The Margrave of Azilia]

[duplicate post eliminated]

[The Margrave of Azilia]

"Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!" /Nietzsche

https://www.literaturepage.com/read/thusspakezarathustra-76.html

And here's a little-known excerpt from Also Sprach Zarathustra, by Richard Strauss:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_QLzthSkfM

[Dr. Ed 2]

Plato felt that men were morally superior to women because men had more teeth than women. What we know today is that even with proper nutrition, pregnancy leaches calcium out of a woman’s body and causes tooth loss. The old average was a tooth lost per child.

[hobie]

Not being able to talk about race and stuff sounds like European censorship.

[bernard11]

What is this nonsense about banning courses that "advocate race or gender ideology."

It sounds meaningless to me. "Race or gender ideology" are not single sets of ideas. There are a lot of hugely different versions of these ideologies.

Aren't white supremacy, or white nationalism, or just simple racism, "race ideologies?"

Isn't the notion that women are supposed to treat their husbands as masters, and obey them a "gender ideology?" Yet some believers recoil at the phrase, and would tell you they hate gender ideology.

Is simply presenting ideas about race or gender "advocating" for an ideology? Is all discussion of these topics now to be banned by MAGA ignoramuses? Talk about some stupid shit.

Un-effin-believable.

[Lee Moore]

Would it be so difficult if we replaced “race or gender ideology” with “religion?” That would cover any religion.

The rule would be permitting you to teach what any religion was about but not to advocate for any religion.

The line might in practice sometimes be difficult to police, particularly if the teacher wants to be an advocate and structures his “explanations” in a slanted way, but conceptually the distinction between advocating and teaching about is not too hard.

You could probably manage to explain the doctrines of Islam without being an advocate for it, no ?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"There'll be plenty of material for a second edition of You Can't Teach That! at least."

It sounds like it should be called, "You Can Teach That, Just Not Here."

State actors who have an individual right to carry out public functions without being constrained by the public are called kings, or dictators, and we're supposed to be against that.