Texas A&M University is the latest school to receive criticism for perceived censorship of materials. The university has required administration to review and approve courses that “advocate race or gender ideology.” Although it may seem inconspicuous at first, this is ripe with potential for unreasonably censoring any discussion of these topics, not only those that push a certain viewpoint.
A foundational text in Western philosophy, Plato’s “Symposium” is now banned from being taught in the university’s introductory-level course, Contemporary Moral Problems. The text is one of Plato’s most popular works and is composed of a Socratic dialogue discussing the philosophy and meaning of love as discussed by Plato’s contemporaries at a dinner party. In censoring a pivotal thinker in philosophy, the Texas A&M administration is prioritizing the comfort of authority over the academic enrichment of students.
Texas A&M instructed Martin Peterson, a philosophy professor at the university, to remove portions of Plato from a class syllabus. This decision prioritizes political restrictions over academic judgment and limits students’ access to foundational philosophical texts. It’s a clear example of censorship, as ideas are being excluded from the classroom not for a lack of educational value, but to comply with ideological regulations.
Students will suffer most from this decision. They are paying for an education that encourages critical thinking, yet are banned from applying a key philosophical text to contemporary issues—something that is crucial in education. Its continued relevance is what keeps it present in philosophy syllabi thousands of years after its initial publication. Texas A&M is not “protecting” students from dangerous ideology, but is inhibiting education in understanding diverse viewpoints and critical readings of classical texts.
This act of censorship mimics the precedent of the current presidential administration, which holds a growing list of flagged words as part of its anti-DEI initiatives. These words encompass an astounding amount of standard vocabulary words found in higher education courses. The list includes words including female, females, ideology, gender and even the word “definition.” The extent of this list insinuates a fear of education and a clear preference for ignorance.
Following online discourse about censorship rumors, Texas A&M Interim President Tommy Williams released a letter stating that reports about the university banning Plato altogether are false. He stated these rumors allege that Plato’s entire body of work is banned from the university. By not acknowledging the actual concern and just stating that “not all” Plato texts are banned, it feels as though the university is trying to ignore and silence people’s fears of censorship.
While over 200 courses at Texas A&M are under review for “gender or race-related content,” the wider implications are even more devastating. This massive number serves as an example of how increasingly widespread restrictions on academic content in the U.S. are, specifically defining advocacy language as too woke or liberal and attempting to ban those conversations from the classroom.
The word “woke” is becoming increasingly common in American politics. Conservatives use the term to describe progressive values, usually with a negative connotation. We believe that it’s important to acknowledge that the term “woke” originated in the early 20th century within the Black community, meaning to remain vigilant and aware of systematic racism and social injustice. It’s a term rooted in education and awareness of social injustice. The recent reclassification of “woke” as an insult demonstrates the clear attack on education and intellectualism.
The constraint placed on content limits both students’ and professors’ academic freedom. The professor teaching the class stated that now, the unit previously discussing the “Symposium” will be centered around discussions of free speech and academic freedom. Rather than outright banning uncomfortable topics, challenging materials should be encouraged in educational settings, as they allow students to discuss their thoughts with peers and develop their own opinions, not those that are only permitted by the university.
Ultimately, subject matter that is integrated into university curriculum should be judged based on the value it brings to learners rather than any controversial ideas or concepts they express. Texts that promote healthy discussion are necessary in developing students into well-rounded adults who are critical of the world around them. This censorship is not only a way of legislating what the next generation reads, but also what they think.
