A Texas A&M philosophy professor says he was told to strip Plato passages and entire units on race and gender ideology out of his introductory ethics syllabus or lose the class. The warning arrived just as the university system began enforcing a new rule that limits core courses from including material that could be seen as advocating race or gender ideology.
How the syllabus review played out
Martin Peterson, who teaches PHIL 111 "Contemporary Moral Issues," submitted his spring syllabus for department review over winter break. He says an email from department head Kristi Sweet instructed him to "mitigate" modules dealing with race and gender ideology, along with the related Plato readings, or he would be reassigned to an upper-level course, according to the Houston Chronicle. Peterson told the outlet he filed the syllabus on Dec. 22, 2025 and that his PHIL 111 section was scheduled to start Jan. 12.
Professor calls it censorship
"Plato has been censored," Peterson said, describing the choice he was given and adding that he plans to consult legal counsel, according to The Dallas Morning News. The disputed material includes Aristophanes' myth of the split humans and Diotima's Ladder of Love from Plato's Symposium, readings he says he assigns to spark discussion of sex, gender and love in historical context, as noted by Daily Nous.
Regents' rule behind the directive
The dust-up traces back to a Board of Regents vote in November that bars system courses from "advocat[ing] race or gender ideology" or covering topics tied to sexual orientation and gender identity without prior sign-off from a campus president, a change reported by The Associated Press. Regents clarified in mid-December that the restriction would apply to core curriculum classes, and university officials have said the policy will be enforced starting this spring, per Texas Public Radio.
Academic freedom groups and faculty push back
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression has blasted the department's move and warned that the broader policy opens the door to unconstitutional political interference in classroom teaching, according to FIRE. Philosophers and campus advocates argue that the vague standard on what counts as "advocacy" could chill discussion across a wide range of fields, a concern explored by Daily Nous.
Legal questions looming
Because Texas A&M is a public university, forced changes to course content can raise First Amendment issues. The Supreme Court has said that "academic freedom is a special concern of the First Amendment" in Keyishian v. Board of Regents, a precedent observers expect to surface in any potential lawsuit. Commentators say FIRE's advocacy and long-standing academic freedom doctrine are likely to shape how courts and campuses assess any legal challenges.
What to watch next
Peterson says he intends to consult counsel while colleagues and free speech groups watch to see whether other instructors get similar ultimatums as the system rolls out its review process. With classes set to begin Jan. 12, the coming days could reveal whether this remains a one-professor clash or turns into a broader test of how far administrators can go in policing syllabi without inviting a court fight, as reported by the Houston Chronicle.
