It is not Paul VI’s Index of forbidden books from the 16th century nor Nazism which, in the 1930s, burned thousands of books. It’s not even Mussolini’s fascist impositions or the USSR banning Orwell. Here we are talking about the “largest democracy” in the world: the States, gentlemen, (which in any case banned James Joyce’s Ulysses in 1922), about which there is a lot of talk these days. Negatively.
“Guidelines” and the need for “appropriateness“Stars and Stripes would have banned Plato’s Symposium this time. To a professor of moral philosophy at the Texas A&M University College of Arts and Sciences, Martin Petersonwas in fact ordered to remove some passages from Plato’s dialogue – one of the most influential philosophers of all time – from the course program because it is not possible to include topics related to “racial ideology, gender ideology or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity”.
Some passages of Plato, to put it simply, would be controversial if placed in the dark context of the debate on gender and race.
And it’s not the only one, eh: there are at least 200 courses at Texas A&M University that have been reported or canceled by university administrators for content related to gender or race.
The new guidelines and the control of knowledge
We are in the midst of a long censorship related to MAGA rhetoric in universities. Dark times, in short.
The new policies of Texas A&M University limit all approaches regarding race and gender, a move which – we now know well – is part of the broader panorama of those reforms wanted by Trump which aim to reduce the influence of social issues in academic curricula. Although philosophy may seem to be a less directly involved area, the decision to exclude Plato from the lessons gives us the measure of a phenomenon that concerns critical thinking and its space in modern universities.
Plato has always offered food for thought which, although complex, is fundamental for understanding the evolution of human thought. His “Republic“, reflections on the role of justice and the search for truth are crucial topics for the formation of aware citizens. But, as Professor Peterson underlines, how can philosophy be taught without addressing Plato’s ideas?
To what extent are we willing to sacrifice the freedom of knowledge to comply with political pressure? The censorship of Plato, one of the most influential thinkers in history, risks fueling a dangerous precedent: if we begin to reduce or even eliminate lessons on fundamental themes of philosophy because they do not align perfectly with certain ideologies, we risk compromising our ability to think critically and independently.
There is no growth without debate, there is no innovation without the ability to deal with different ideas. And it is precisely this that risks disappearing when a hotbed of ideas such as a University begins to limit what can be said and taught, especially in a context such as that of the human sciences, where every great discovery starts from discussion, questioning and the exploration of new points of view.
The case of Texas A&M University is just one of the latest signs of a phenomenon that is affecting many universities, where politics and ideological control are undermining academic freedom. But the real question is: what kind of education do we want for future generations? Do we want an education that limits thought, or one that frees it and stimulates it to grow?
If we continue down this path, we run the risk of compromising not only our intellectual future, but also our ability to face the world’s challenges. In an era in which pluralism of thought should be celebrated, the real challenge is to keep alive the ideas that allow us to compare, grow and, above all, change.
And Trump, no, he is not putting us in the right conditions.
