The party of free expression has banned the teaching Plato at Texas A&M

[Anonymous]

Apparently Plato’s Symposium has too much discussion of gender and sexuality to conform to Texas’ new brainwashing standards.
https://www.kbtx.com/2026/01/07/texas-am-philosophy-professor-ordered-remove-plato-reading-or-be-reassigned/

[Anonymous]

They only banned teaching PART of Plato. That’s so much better. Right? Definitely not insane.

[Anonymous]

The philosophy department at the university ordered the removal. Having read Plato's Republic I am curious as to the context. Definitely need a lot more information before reaching for hysterics.

[Anonymous]

Insane. Unimaginable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Insane. Unimaginable.

Let's find out from the philosophy department what their rationale is, and let's also find out what exactly was being taight. But I suspect you don't want to, do you?

[Anonymous]

The response was epic.

https://dailynous.com/2026/01/06/texas-am-bans-plato/

The professor has proposed focusing on the philosophical contemporary moral issues focused on censorship. His new syllabus includes the NYT article, Texas A&M, Under New Curriculum Limits, Warns Professor Not to Teach Plato.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/07/us/tamu-plato-race-gender.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The philosophy department at the university ordered the removal. Having read Plato's Republic I am curious as to the context. Definitely need a lot more information before reaching for hysterics.

There really isn't a need for any context. There is no rational world where any portion of Plato's Republic should be banned, particularly in a philosphy course. I mean, I thought we were for western culture, no?

[Anonymous]

Once again, in our wonderful free country, Republicans are the anti-freedom party.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insane. Unimaginable.

Let's find out from the philosophy department what their rationale is, and let's also find out what exactly was being taight. But I suspect you don't want to, do you?

The article has the syllabus and it states specifically what was being taught: Plato, excerpts from Symposium: 180c –185c, 189c –193d, 210a –212b. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/symposium/

The Platonic Foundation translations mean that the text follows Plato’s original structure, marked by Stephanus numbers (e.g., 180c, 189c, 210a). Each claim is tied to specific passages, not blended across speeches. Ideas are presented in the order Plato gives them, even when they repeat or develop slowly. Language tends to be literal and philosophical, preserving ambiguity and nuance.

These excerpts from Plato’s Symposium represent three of the most famous speeches in the dialogue, each offering a distinct theory on the nature and purpose of Love (Eros). The excerpt that is most likely controversial is most likely 180-185C.

Pausanias: The Dual Nature of Love (180c–185c)
Pausanias argues that Love is not a single entity but is split into two types, Common Love ( purely physical, directed toward both women and men, and values the body over the mind) and Heavenly Love (the relationship between an older man and a youth, provided it is based on virtue). He argues that this love is honorable only when the older lover seeks to improve the younger's character and wisdom, and the younger seeks to learn.

[Anonymous]

I thought the religious nuts were all about teaching classical education?

[Anonymous]

One of my undergraduate degrees is in political science, and I did a concentration in political theory, taking every course offered by the professor who specialized in that area of study. A seminar on Plato’s Republic was one of the foundational courses - I still remember room in the old hall where I took that course in summer session.

Later I earned a law degree from Georgetown and took the alternative curriculum, which did all the black letter law but added to it a great deal of political/legal theory. More Plato, of course!

There is absolutely NOTHING in Plato that should be off limits to college students or anybody else. Unless you are intentionally trying to produce an ignorant populace who will never dream of philosopher kings or wonder if they might be trapped in a cave being fed lies and half truths.

It is a sad road we are on in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insane. Unimaginable.

Let's find out from the philosophy department what their rationale is, and let's also find out what exactly was being taight. But I suspect you don't want to, do you?

The article has the syllabus and it states specifically what was being taught: Plato, excerpts from Symposium: 180c –185c, 189c –193d, 210a –212b. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/symposium/

The Platonic Foundation translations mean that the text follows Plato’s original structure, marked by Stephanus numbers (e.g., 180c, 189c, 210a). Each claim is tied to specific passages, not blended across speeches. Ideas are presented in the order Plato gives them, even when they repeat or develop slowly. Language tends to be literal and philosophical, preserving ambiguity and nuance.

These excerpts from Plato’s Symposium represent three of the most famous speeches in the dialogue, each offering a distinct theory on the nature and purpose of Love (Eros). The excerpt that is most likely controversial is most likely 180-185C.

Pausanias: The Dual Nature of Love (180c–185c)
Pausanias argues that Love is not a single entity but is split into two types, Common Love ( purely physical, directed toward both women and men, and values the body over the mind) and Heavenly Love (the relationship between an older man and a youth, provided it is based on virtue). He argues that this love is honorable only when the older lover seeks to improve the younger's character and wisdom, and the younger seeks to learn.

Once again, let's wait and see what the philosophy department's rationale is before being hysterical. I'm not connecting dots and getting political without hearing the whole story. I have read Plato's Republic several times so that's why I'm curious.

[Anonymous]

Am I the first to be surprised that Texas A&M even HAS a philosophy department?

I thought philosophy was "woke" and useless, especially when compared to STEM majors.

[Anonymous]

MAGA dont need no schoolin. Education & school is for loosers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Insane. Unimaginable.

Let's find out from the philosophy department what their rationale is, and let's also find out what exactly was being taight. But I suspect you don't want to, do you?

The article has the syllabus and it states specifically what was being taught: Plato, excerpts from Symposium: 180c –185c, 189c –193d, 210a –212b. https://www.platonicfoundation.org/translation/symposium/

The Platonic Foundation translations mean that the text follows Plato’s original structure, marked by Stephanus numbers (e.g., 180c, 189c, 210a). Each claim is tied to specific passages, not blended across speeches. Ideas are presented in the order Plato gives them, even when they repeat or develop slowly. Language tends to be literal and philosophical, preserving ambiguity and nuance.

These excerpts from Plato’s Symposium represent three of the most famous speeches in the dialogue, each offering a distinct theory on the nature and purpose of Love (Eros). The excerpt that is most likely controversial is most likely 180-185C.

Pausanias: The Dual Nature of Love (180c–185c)
Pausanias argues that Love is not a single entity but is split into two types, Common Love ( purely physical, directed toward both women and men, and values the body over the mind) and Heavenly Love (the relationship between an older man and a youth, provided it is based on virtue). He argues that this love is honorable only when the older lover seeks to improve the younger's character and wisdom, and the younger seeks to learn.

Once again, let's wait and see what the philosophy department's rationale is before being hysterical. I'm not connecting dots and getting political without hearing the whole story. I have read Plato's Republic several times so that's why I'm curious.

No one is getting "hysterical".

The philosophy dept isn't behind this change. It's being driven from above for political purposes, not academic.

A&M Board of Regents: "According to the revised text, “no system academic course will advocate race or gender ideology, or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity,” with a narrow exception for certain non-core curriculum or graduate courses. Those exempted course materials must first be reviewed, show that they serve a “necessary educational purpose” and be approved in writing by the campus president."

https://www.texastribune.org/2026/01/07/texas-am-race-gender-courses/
"Professor Martin Peterson submitted his syllabus for PHIL 111, Contemporary Moral Issues, for review Dec. 22. On Tuesday, his department head told him he had two options: remove the modules on race ideology and gender ideology, including readings from Plato, or be reassigned to teach a noncore philosophy course. The email, obtained by the Tribune, gave Peterson until the close of business Wednesday to decide."

The course content clearly violated the regents' politically-motivated guidance.

Read for yourself. Here is the guidance:
https://www.texastribune.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/08-01-Exhibit-ADOPTED-VERSION.pdf