Can you teach without teaching Plato? This question was asked to answer the philosophy professor of Texas A&M University, Martin Petersonwho a few weeks ago was asked to remove passages from Plato’s “Symposium” from the curriculum. Cause; In the book, whose time of writing is placed around 385 BC, mention is made, among other things, of the existence of intersex people, while homosexual relationships are recorded.
Issues of gender and sexual orientation are therefore raised, topics that, according to the new regulatory framework of the American academic institution, are not permissible due to a series of executive orders signed by Donald Trump and aimed at reversing the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies established by the Obama and Biden presidencies.
In this context, “Vima” spoke with Martin Peterson about censorship in American universities and the climate in the US academic world in the era of Trump’s rule.
How and when were you notified that parts of the curriculum should be removed from the “Symposium” and what was the rationale for the censorship?
The issue of censorship did not start with me, there is a precedent. In September a professor of the English Language Department [σ.σ. ονόματι Μελίσα Μακόουλ] he was fired on the grounds that he taught children’s literature. During a class, she addressed questions about the stereotypical representation of the family in children’s books, such as why there is an overrepresentation of heterosexual couples while same-sex parents are absent. In addition to this, the dean of the department was dismissed and after intense pressure from Republican congressmen of Texas, and the president of the university, who, it should be noted, has been a general and head of the General Staff of the US Air Force.
That was the beginning.
Due to the incident, the authorities of the institution asked all the professors to submit the syllabus of their courses as a precaution. The decision was based on a directive that prohibits teaching on topics related to gender or race. There would be a logic if we were talking about supporting specific positions that refer to politics rather than learning. But now we are forbidden to discuss them any more.
I teach a course called “Contemporary Ethical Issues,” which includes topics such as the death penalty, the ethics of war, abortion, and of course gender and race. In this context, I also refer to earlier readings, for example this week I suggested a quote by John Stuart Mill, the famous English liberal philosopher. This semester I had decided to add a passage from Plato’s “Symposium” where he refers to the Scale of Love and among other things Aristophanes’ myth of three types of sexes. This report led the university to censor me.
How did you react to the censorship?
I approached the Union of University Professors and after discussion with the legal department, I decided to replace the material with speeches addressing free speech and academic freedom while speaking about my entire experience publicly. I take this development, I must tell you, as a victory because the censorship imposed on me has put the issue itself at the center of attention, even on a global scale. But also in the premises of the institution, the day after the announcement of the censorship, a protest was held with hundreds of people who requested the change of the decision.
In your view, is the problem with the university’s administration or the atmosphere created by the Trump administration’s policies?
I must make it clear that my problem is not about the university or any person in particular. With the policy in place, which should be abolished, I have a problem. The Board of Directors of the university consists of honest people. They have a certain point of view and I have a completely different one, no problem. So my point is that we can’t have an authoritarian regime that forces the council into the thankless task of choosing which bits of Plato work for us and which don’t. We can’t have just one point of view in the classroom, students don’t learn anything that way.
Do you think similar tactics will continue? How would you describe the current climate in academia?
Unfortunately, I believe that more issues will be added to the spectrum of censorship. We may be just the beginning. Today it’s gender and sexual orientation that we can’t discuss but what about, for example, the issue of climate change, which many conservative people in Texas do not share? Or with the evolution of species and Darwin, who in our state and elsewhere is considered “controversial”? The list of banned books in Texas High Schools is ridiculously long. I am concerned about the surrounding atmosphere, and I fear that as time goes on such incidents will attract less and less attention. And this may have an effect on how much and how many of us protest against such phenomena that offend our democracy.
As for academia and what can it do? But to talk about the problem, to raise it at the level of public discourse with all her strength. Texas A&M is a public university and knowledge is a public good, it should not be politicized, nor should any kind of partisan control be exercised in the university space.
Supposedly, Plato was a favorite philosopher of conservatives, who praise the classics and their study. Do you see any kind of hypocrisy in this kind of selective advocacy?
Of course, that’s why I consider what happened to be useful in a sense. If we consider what happened, our conservative fellow citizens called for the banning of a philosopher who distrusted democracy and loved the idea of an elite ruling a country. It is truly ironic that they themselves want to censor someone who, 2,500 years ago, supported what they generally believe today.
DEI policies and political correctness are often referenced. Do you think there is a basis or is this an excuse for the government to intervene in universities?
Speaking as a citizen rather than a professor, I would say this is an excuse by the Trump administration. Yes, some universities – certainly not ours which was moving on a generally conservative trajectory – were imbued with a logic of political mission, imbued with the reasoning that says “we are liberal strongholds”. Logic that I consider wrong, universities should not take a political position, they seek the truth and let society decide on the policies to be implemented. But we are talking about a very small portion of American educational institutions. In the meantime, it is critical to agree that American universities are still the best and attract the best talent from around the world because they do not censor their professors. What happened in my case is deeply problematic from this point of view as well. We are not making our universities great again by censoring the classics.
