Texas A&M bans part of Plato's Symposium

Free speech, hypocrisy, and bad faith

• Several comments frame the ban as part of a broader pattern where “free speech” is defended only for speech one’s own side likes; both left and right are accused of bad-faith instrumentalization.
• Some argue this is the predictable result of normalizing content-based restrictions in academia: tools used against one faction will be used by the next.
• Others connect it to structural issues like money-as-speech (Citizens United), saying power and volume, not principle, now determine whose speech survives.

Academic freedom & curriculum control

• Many see administrators removing parts of Plato from a philosophy syllabus as an obvious violation of academic freedom, especially at the university level where professors typically choose texts.
• A minority reply that “core curriculum” has always been subject to institutional control and accreditation constraints, though others say that’s not the same as ideological micromanagement of specific passages.
• There’s some dark humor about what “Philosophy 101” becomes when cleansed of anything controversial, and speculation this might be overzealous implementation of a vague anti–“gender ideology” directive or even malicious compliance.

Language, slurs, and cultural backlash

• A long side thread debates everyday derogatory language (“gay,” the f‑slur, “retarded,” “spaz”).
• One perspective: calmly challenging such language is an important way to support marginalized people; casual negative usage shapes culture and harms those targeted.
• Opposing view: “language policing” and firing people for taboo words, even without malice, has produced backlash and made those words more attractive and powerful.
• Several comments emphasize judging people by the words they choose; polite “that bothers me” is generally seen as fine, crusading and punishment as counterproductive.
• There’s also concern that Trump-era leadership has normalized public meanness and slurs.

Broader political & civilizational stakes

• Some see the ban as emblematic of a MAGA-driven retreat from Enlightenment values and open inquiry, and worry about US higher-ed competitiveness if ideology drives what can be taught.
• Historical analogies are raised: Nazi hostility to “Jewish physics” and how persecuted intellectuals boosted US science; fears that future breakthroughs by disfavored groups might be ignored.
• Others push back against caricaturing the “medieval” era, noting important intellectual work by church scholars.

Impact on institutions & responses

• Commenters note that “banned” in this context mostly means silently omitted from syllabi; students may never know what’s missing, so the effect is real but quiet.
• Some argue reading the Symposium (or at least the specific passages) is now an act students can deliberately choose, with a potential Streisand effect.
• An A&M philosophy alumnus vows to withhold donations until the policy is reversed and worries about the reputation and value of past and future degrees.
• Multiple comments highlight the irony that factions loudly championing “Western civilization” are now censoring Plato.