By Matt Underwood The immediate subject is the shocking news that Texas A&M University has instructed a professor not to teach Plato due to the institution’s concerns about gender-related rules. This situation, as documented by Dr. Peterson, is, to put it mildly, an eyebrow-raiser. The response from the university appears to be a form of censorship, dictating the curriculum and limiting academic freedom. The irony, as many people have pointed out, is thick enough to cut with a knife: Plato, a figure foundational to Western thought and often seen as a purist and conservative himself, is now deemed too “woke” for a university.
The professor, in an effort to comply with the new restrictions, had to replace the original module on Plato with lectures on free speech and academic freedom. This replacement module now includes the very article that brought this issue to light. This, in itself, is a biting commentary on the situation. The censorship extends to not allowing discussions on topics of gender, which, given the subject matter of Plato’s works, is a significant blow. The specific passage from Plato’s works that are flagged relates to Diotima’s Ladder of Love, highlighting how discussions about love, even platonic, are under scrutiny. The underlying “gender ideology” that the university seems to be concerned about is the open discussion of relationships beyond the traditional framework.
It makes one ponder the implications of such restrictions. If Plato, a cornerstone of philosophical thought, can be banned, what other areas of study are vulnerable? It raises a crucial question: What does it mean for an educational institution when it restricts the pursuit of knowledge and critical thinking? The argument made is that these restrictions hinder students’ ability to question, analyze, and develop their perspectives. The emphasis is on a fear of independent thought, and the desire to control education.
The potential ramifications of such censorship are broad. The ability to engage in critical thinking, which is a core tenant of education, is under threat, potentially leading to the dumbing down of the curriculum and a generation of less informed individuals. The perception that degrees from Texas universities are being devalued outside of Texas is a genuine concern, with the quality of these institutions now being called into question.
The implications extend to the potential stifling of academic inquiry. To omit Plato is to remove a fundamental pillar of philosophy, effectively undermining the structure of the discipline. It is like trying to drive a car without wheels, or build a structure without its foundation. This restriction shows a clear misunderstanding of history and the origins of many fundamental concepts. The writings of Plato shaped much of Western religion and history, to try and omit this, is to create an alternative history.
This is a scenario reminiscent of historical censorship. The reference to the persecution of Socrates, Plato’s teacher, emphasizes the historical continuity of efforts to stifle intellectual inquiry. The concern is that the current establishment wants to control information and restrict education, promoting a specific ideology rather than encouraging free thought. The implication is that universities, which are supposedly institutions of higher learning, are under the control of those who do not value the pursuit of knowledge.
The reactions express a mix of incredulity, anger, and concern. The fear is not just about censorship but about the direction in which universities are moving. It is felt that these institutions are being transformed into centers of indoctrination rather than platforms for open discussion and critical analysis. The claim that the university is turning into an “ignorant dystopia” and moving toward a “King James Bible-based ‘educational’ model” highlights this fear. The perceived goal is to limit the scope of education and restrict the open exploration of ideas.
The irony that Plato, a conservative thinker, is seen as too “woke” encapsulates the absurdity of the situation. This situation appears as a form of “book burning,” with attempts to create a vacuum where only specific ideologies can exist. The focus is on a particular interpretation of religious values, suppressing diverse perspectives and restricting open-minded exploration.
The core message revolves around the importance of free thought, critical analysis, and the danger of censorship within educational institutions. The university’s stance on Plato highlights the tension between the pursuit of knowledge and the suppression of ideas. The case underscores a larger discussion about the direction of higher education and the essential role of academic freedom. This situation presents a cautionary tale about the future of learning, emphasizing the importance of intellectual freedom and the dangers of censorship.