Opponents of the freedom of expression and communication secured by our Constitution are highly reminiscent of the cave dwellers in Plato’s Republic. Plato used the allegory of the cave to illustrate the defects in human nature that caused Athenians not only to want to kill Socrates but also to act on their craven desire. Athenians in the greatest true democracy in history, chose, in the Golden Age of Greece, to kill Socrates, the most famous and arguably the most influential philosopher of Greece’s Golden Age.
Plato, the most famous and faithful disciple of Socrates, tried to help Athenians understand the defect in their nature that made them want to kill, and ultimately to choose to kill, a mere philosopher who sought only to enlighten. The defect Plato addressed is the defect demonstrated by fanatics in power or fanatics supporting people in power.
The truth is that many people would rather kill a dream and even kill other people who dare to dream than simply allow people to live in the light. Shortly after just such killing on a massive scale, President Lincoln underscored the sacred purpose and insight of those who sacrificed their precious lives to fulfill their oaths to support and defend our Constitution. Our President then, during our darkest days, was one of America’s greatest philosophers and a national leader made in the mold of the best of the American Revolution. He used his position and powers to emphasize that the United States of America was created to be a land of the enlightened, not the land of craven cave dwellers. We the People created “this nation” to secure “freedom” by creating “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Well, that policy backFIREed. But it does seem likely that the Philosophy Department was intentionally enforcing the most extreme and certainly unintended interpretation of the 'shall not advocate' policy. Teaching the historical and sociological foundations of the Bible is not advocating for the Inquisition.
So, I am still perplexed as to what academia can do to eliminate the scourge of ideological and activist advocacy that hides behind academic freedom.
At the very least we can mock them, amply, daily. Sadly, most academics have too much to lose if they get into this fray. A few brave souls have done so, and a few brave souls will carry on. Good on them.
Malicious compliance is a thing also. Where I fundamentally disagree with FIRE is the notion that elected officials cannot decide curriculum in public schools. That’s not a sound First Amendment position.
So The court pointed to “particularly degrading, insulting, and malicious” comments towards Macron to justify jailing internet commentors. Note that they did NOT point to "false". Utter shame on Sylvie the "reporter". (For the record, I would be fascinated and impressed if the suspicions bore out .. suspicions that would much easier to dispense by the brother actually appearing live in the same room in a press conference with the First Lady, than by criminalizing speech. But THAT is obviously not the issue here.)
Oh well, Texas A & M just did themselves a harvard. Right up the u-no-ware. I'd thought better of Texas A & M, but hey, it's 2026 and after the Clownworld nonsense of the past several years, why am I surprised? As a taxpayer, I won't reach for the Kleenex if they lose their funding, and as one who did receive a proper education, for which I am most grateful, I can only conclude that in these peculiar times those who wish for a proper education— one that would, of course my horse include some familiarity with Plato— will be most likely to actually get it if they pay for it out of pocket for private tutors.
Opponents of the freedom of expression and communication secured by our Constitution are highly reminiscent of the cave dwellers in Plato’s Republic. Plato used the allegory of the cave to illustrate the defects in human nature that caused Athenians not only to want to kill Socrates but also to act on their craven desire. Athenians in the greatest true democracy in history, chose, in the Golden Age of Greece, to kill Socrates, the most famous and arguably the most influential philosopher of Greece’s Golden Age.
Plato, the most famous and faithful disciple of Socrates, tried to help Athenians understand the defect in their nature that made them want to kill, and ultimately to choose to kill, a mere philosopher who sought only to enlighten. The defect Plato addressed is the defect demonstrated by fanatics in power or fanatics supporting people in power.
The truth is that many people would rather kill a dream and even kill other people who dare to dream than simply allow people to live in the light. Shortly after just such killing on a massive scale, President Lincoln underscored the sacred purpose and insight of those who sacrificed their precious lives to fulfill their oaths to support and defend our Constitution. Our President then, during our darkest days, was one of America’s greatest philosophers and a national leader made in the mold of the best of the American Revolution. He used his position and powers to emphasize that the United States of America was created to be a land of the enlightened, not the land of craven cave dwellers. We the People created “this nation” to secure “freedom” by creating “government of the people, by the people, for the people.”
Well, that policy backFIREed. But it does seem likely that the Philosophy Department was intentionally enforcing the most extreme and certainly unintended interpretation of the 'shall not advocate' policy. Teaching the historical and sociological foundations of the Bible is not advocating for the Inquisition.
So, I am still perplexed as to what academia can do to eliminate the scourge of ideological and activist advocacy that hides behind academic freedom.
At the very least we can mock them, amply, daily. Sadly, most academics have too much to lose if they get into this fray. A few brave souls have done so, and a few brave souls will carry on. Good on them.
Malicious compliance is a thing also. Where I fundamentally disagree with FIRE is the notion that elected officials cannot decide curriculum in public schools. That’s not a sound First Amendment position.
So The court pointed to “particularly degrading, insulting, and malicious” comments towards Macron to justify jailing internet commentors. Note that they did NOT point to "false". Utter shame on Sylvie the "reporter". (For the record, I would be fascinated and impressed if the suspicions bore out .. suspicions that would much easier to dispense by the brother actually appearing live in the same room in a press conference with the First Lady, than by criminalizing speech. But THAT is obviously not the issue here.)
Oh well, Texas A & M just did themselves a harvard. Right up the u-no-ware. I'd thought better of Texas A & M, but hey, it's 2026 and after the Clownworld nonsense of the past several years, why am I surprised? As a taxpayer, I won't reach for the Kleenex if they lose their funding, and as one who did receive a proper education, for which I am most grateful, I can only conclude that in these peculiar times those who wish for a proper education— one that would, of course my horse include some familiarity with Plato— will be most likely to actually get it if they pay for it out of pocket for private tutors.
Not teaching Plato. Especially in a philosophy class. 🤦🏼♀️